52% of candidates passed this question.

The safe and appropriate use of these products in ICU is a key area of critical care practice so a fair bit of detail was required for a pass.

Most candidates had a decent understanding of the main constituents of the two products, although few mentioned that FFP may still contain some cells, or that prothrombin concentrates contain heparin.

To gain full marks for this section the components and concentration/amounts would need to be accurately described.

Production of the two products was generally well understood and articulated.

A more comprehensive and specific list of indications than rather than “bleeding” or “coagulopathy” was expected.

While using elements of the standard “compare/contrast” pharmacology structure was helpful, rigidly adhering to it, for instance, noting FFP’s “poor oral bioavailability” – did not garner marks. It is important to note that heparin is not reversed by FFP and FFP may in fact increase heparin’s effect.

FFP does not cause dilutional coagulopathy, it is the treatment for dilutional coagulopathy. Most candidates recognised the need for ABO matching with FFP but not prothrombin concentrates, however few noted that Rhesus matching is not required.

The larger fluid load of FFP in comparison to prothrombin concentrates was well recognised a major drawback of FFP use.