Andexanet Alfa Versus 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Reversal of Factor Xa Inhibitors in Intracranial Hemorrhage


By Abdalla A. Ammar, Mahmoud A. Ammar, Kent A. Owusu, Stacy C. Brown, Firas Kaddouh, Aladine A. Elsamadicy MD, Julián N. Acosta & Guido J. Falcone

First Online: 06 January 2021


There are limited data on the risks and benefits of using andexanet alfa (AA) in comparison with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) to reverse factor Xa inhibitors (FXi) associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We sought to describe our experience with AA or 4F-PCC in patients with oral FXi-related traumatic and spontaneous ICH.


We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive adult patients with FXi-related ICH who received AA or 4F-PCC. FXi-related ICH cases included traumatic and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhages. Our primary analysis evaluated ICH stability on head computed tomography scan (CT), defined as a similar amount of blood from the initial scan at the onset of ICH to subsequent scans, at 6-h and 24-h post-administration of AA or 4F-PCC. For the subset of spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhages, volume was measured at 6-h and 24-h post-reversal. In secondary analyses, we evaluated good functional outcome at discharge, defined as a Modified Rankin Score of less than 3, and the incidence of thrombotic events after AA or 4F-PCC adminstration, during hospitalization.


A total of 44 patients (16 traumatic and 28 spontaneous ICH) with median age of 79 years [72–86], 36% females, with a FXi-related ICH, were included in this study. The majority of spontaneous ICHs were intraparenchymal 19 (68%). Twenty-eight patients (64%) received AA and 16 patients (36%) received 4F-PCC. There was no difference between AA and 4F-PCC in terms of CT stability at 6 h (21 [78%] vs 10 [71%], p = 0.71) and 24 h (15 [88%] vs 6 [60%], p = 0.15). In a subgroup of patients with spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage, there was no difference in the degree of achieved hemostasis based on hematoma volume between AA and 4F-PCC at 6 h (9.3 mL [6.9–26.4] vs 10 mL [9.4–22.1], adjusted p = 0. 997) and 24-h (9.2 mL [6.1–18.8] vs 9.9 [9.4–21.1], adjusted p = 1). The number of patients with good outcome based on mRS on discharge were 10 (36%) and 6 (38%) in the AA and 4F-PCC groups, respectively (adjusted p = 0.81). The incidence of thromboembolic events was similar in the AA and 4F-PCC groups (2 [7%] vs 0, p = 0.53).


In this limited sample of patients, we found no difference in neuroimaging stability, functional outcome and thrombotic events when comparing AA and 4F-PCC in patients with FXi-related ICH. Since our analysis is likely underpowered, a multi-center collaborative network devoted to this question is warranted.

Read full article here.