This recommendation does not apply to non life-threatening bleeding, because the cost likely outweighs potential benefit. The panel identified the following additional research questions. (1) What is the comparative effectiveness of administration of co- agulation factor Xa (recombinant), inactivated-zhzo in the setting of direct Xa inhibitor-associated life-threatening bleeding compared with cessation of direct Xa inhibitor alone? (2) What is the cost- effectiveness of administration of coagulation factor Xa (recombi- nant), inactivated-zhzo using pharmacoeconomic modeling based on comparative data and the actual costs of the intervention? (3) What is the relative benefit of coagulation factor Xa (recombinant), inactivated-zhzo compared with alternate interventions such as nonspecific procoagulants (antifibrinolytics and/or PCCs)? (4) Would a rapidly available test for anti-Xa effect prevent administra- tion of coagulation factor Xa (recombinant), inactivated-zhzo to patients who do not have significant Xa inhibitor concentrations? Question: For patients with life-threatening bleeding during dabiga- tran treatment of VTE, should cessation of dabigatran plus idarucizu- mab administration vs cessation of dabigatran alone be used? For patients with life-threatening bleeding during dabigatran treatment of VTE, the ASH guideline panel suggests using idar- ucizumab in addition to cessation of dabigatran rather than no idarucizumab (conditional recommendation based on very low certainty in the evidence about effects ). Remark: This recommendation does not apply to non life-threatening bleeding. Summary of the evidence. We found no systematic reviews addressing this question but identified 3 relevant observa- tional studies. Two studies included an intervention arm only and 1 study included a control arm only (none of the patients received idarucizumab).109 We combined the number of events and the total number of patients from the 3 studies to calculate a relative effect. 