Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, time to international normalized ratio (INR) reversal, and total volume of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) administered using fixed-dose versus weight-based dosing strategies in patients requiring urgent warfarin reversal, with specific focus on clinical outcomes of hemostatic efficacy, thromboembolic events, and mortality rates. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through October 2023. We searched for randomized clinical trials or observational studies that compared efficacy or safety outcomes of fixed versus variable 4-PCC dose in adult patients. Results: In the 14 included studies, the overall use of fixed-dose 4-PCC was associated with a lower likelihood of reaching the INR goal (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80–0.89) compared to the variable-dose group. In addition, a significantly larger proportion of patients (169 of 651, 26%) required an additional dose of 4-PCC. The rates of mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70–1.03) and thromboembolic events (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.65–2.45) were similar between the two treatment groups. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that variable dosing of 4-PCC more successfully achieves the target INR for warfarin reversal compared to fixed dosing. However, the dosing strategies have similar mortality and thromboembolic rates. While fixed dosing offers a simpler approach, it may require additional administration. Future studies should focus on optimizing dosing strategies to balance efficacy, safety, and practicality in various clinical scenarios

Background: In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), the literature suggests the overuse of computerized tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and underuse of clinical decision rules before imaging request. This study determined the potential for avoidable CTPA using the modified Wells score (mWS) and D-dimer assay in patients with suspected PE. Methods: This hospital-based retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 661 consecutive patients with suspected PE who underwent CTPA in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital for the use of a clinical prediction rule (mWS) and D-dimer assay. The score was calculated retrospectively from the available data in the files of patients who did not have a documented clinical prediction rule. Overuse (avoidable) CTPA was defined as D-dimer negativity and PE unlikely for this study. Results: Of 661 patients’ data examined, clinical prediction rules were documented in 15 (2.3%).In total, 422 patients (63.8%) had required information on modified Wells criteria and D-dimer assays and were included for further analysis. PE on CTPA was present in 22 (5.21%) of PE unlikely (mWS ≤4) and 1 (0.24%) of D-dimer negative patients. Thirty patients (7.11%) met the avoidable CTPA (DD negative+PE unlikely) criteria, and it was significantly associated with dyspnea. The value of sensitivity of avoidable CTPA was 100%, whereas the positive predictive value was 90.3%. Conclusion Underutilization of clinical prediction rules before prescribing CTPA is common in emergency departments. Therefore, a mandatory policy should be implemented regarding the evaluation of avoidable CTPA imaging to reduce CTPA overuse.