Effect of aprotinin on the red cell immunity in cardiopulmonary bypass

Anti-fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have led to the development of a range of interventions to minimise blood loss during major surgery. Anti-fibrinolytic drugs are widely used, particularly in cardiac surgery, and previous reviews have found them to be effective in reducing blood loss, the need for transfusion, and the need for re-operation due to continued or recurrent bleeding. In the last few years questions have been raised regarding the comparative performance of the drugs. The safety of the most popular agent, aprotinin, has been challenged, and it was withdrawn from world markets in May 2008 because of concerns that it increased the risk of cardiovascular complications and death.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effects of the anti-fibrinolytic drugs aprotinin, tranexamic acid (TXA), and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA) on blood loss during surgery, the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and adverse events, particularly vascular occlusion, renal dysfunction, and death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (July 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) 1950 to July 2010, EMBASE (Ovid SP) 1980 to July 2010. References in identified trials and review articles were checked and trial authors were contacted to identify any additional studies. The searches were last updated in July 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-fibrinolytic drugs in adults scheduled for non-urgent surgery. Eligible trials compared anti-fibrinolytic drugs with placebo (or no treatment), or with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. This version of the review includes a sensitivity analysis excluding trials authored by Prof. Joachim Boldt.

MAIN RESULTS

This review summarises data from 252 RCTs that recruited over 25,000 participants. Data from the head-to-head trials suggest an advantage of aprotinin over the lysine analogues TXA and EACA in terms of reducing perioperative blood loss, but the differences were small. Compared to control, aprotinin reduced the probability of requiring RBC transfusion by a relative 34% (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.72). The RR for RBC transfusion with TXA was 0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.70) and was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.99) with EACA. When the pooled estimates from the head-to-head trials of the two lysine analogues were combined and compared to aprotinin alone, aprotinin appeared more effective in reducing the need for RBC transfusion (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).Aprotinin reduced the need for re-operation due to bleeding by a relative 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.62). This translates into an absolute risk reduction of 2% and a number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 50 (95% CI 33 to 100). A similar trend was seen with EACA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.99) but not TXA (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.17). The blood transfusion data were heterogeneous and funnel plots indicate that trials of aprotinin and the lysine analogues may be subject to publication bias.When compared with no treatment aprotinin did not increase the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11), stroke (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.52), renal dysfunction (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.54) or overall mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06). Similar trends were seen with the lysine analogues, but data were sparse. These data conflict with the results of recently published non-randomised studies, which found increased risk of cardiovascular complications and death with aprotinin. There are concerns about the adequacy of reporting of uncommon events in the small clinical trials included in this review.When aprotinin was compared directly with either, or both, of the two lysine analogues it resulted in a significant increase in the risk of death (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02, 1.89), and a non-significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.11 95% CI 0.82, 1.50). Most of the data contributing to this added risk came from a single study - the BART trial (2008).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-fibrinolytic drugs provide worthwhile reductions in blood loss and the receipt of allogeneic red cell transfusion. Aprotinin appears to be slightly more effective than the lysine analogues in reducing blood loss and the receipt of blood transfusion. However, head to head comparisons show a lower risk of death with lysine analogues when compared with aprotinin. The lysine analogues are effective in reducing blood loss during and after surgery, and appear to be free of serious adverse effects.

Anti-fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have led to the development of a range of interventions to minimise blood loss during major surgery. Anti-fibrinolytic drugs are widely used, particularly in cardiac surgery, and previous reviews have found them to be effective in reducing blood loss, the need for transfusion, and the need for re-operation due to continued or recurrent bleeding. In the last few years questions have been raised regarding the comparative performance of the drugs. The safety of the most popular agent, aprotinin, has been challenged, and it was withdrawn from world markets in May 2008 because of concerns that it increased the risk of cardiovascular complications and death.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effects of the anti-fibrinolytic drugs aprotinin, tranexamic acid (TXA), and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA) on blood loss during surgery, the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and adverse events, particularly vascular occlusion, renal dysfunction, and death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (July 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) 1950 to July 2010, EMBASE (Ovid SP) 1980 to July 2010. References in identified trials and review articles were checked and trial authors were contacted to identify any additional studies. The searches were last updated in July 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-fibrinolytic drugs in adults scheduled for non-urgent surgery. Eligible trials compared anti-fibrinolytic drugs with placebo (or no treatment), or with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

This review summarises data from 252 RCTs that recruited over 25,000 participants. Data from the head-to-head trials suggest an advantage of aprotinin over the lysine analogues TXA and EACA in terms of reducing perioperative blood loss, but the differences were small. Compared to control, aprotinin reduced the probability of requiring RBC transfusion by a relative 34% (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.72). The RR for RBC transfusion with TXA was 0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.70) and was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.99) with EACA. When the pooled estimates from the head-to-head trials of the two lysine analogues were combined and compared to aprotinin alone, aprotinin appeared more effective in reducing the need for RBC transfusion (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).Aprotinin reduced the need for re-operation due to bleeding by a relative 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.62). This translates into an absolute risk reduction of 2% and a number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 50 (95% CI 33 to 100). A similar trend was seen with EACA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.99) but not TXA (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.17). The blood transfusion data were heterogeneous and funnel plots indicate that trials of aprotinin and the lysine analogues may be subject to publication bias.When compared with no treatment aprotinin did not increase the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11), stroke (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.52), renal dysfunction (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.54) or overall mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06). Similar trends were seen with the lysine analogues, but data were sparse. These data conflict with the results of recently published non-randomised studies, which found increased risk of cardiovascular complications and death with aprotinin. There are concerns about the adequacy of reporting of uncommon events in the small clinical trials included in this review.When aprotinin was compared directly with either, or both, of the two lysine analogues it resulted in a significant increase in the risk of death (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02, 1.89), and a non-significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.11 95% CI 0.82, 1.50). Most of the data contributing to this added risk came from a single study - the BART trial (2008).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-fibrinolytic drugs provide worthwhile reductions in blood loss and the receipt of allogeneic red cell transfusion. Aprotinin appears to be slightly more effective than the lysine analogues in reducing blood loss and the receipt of blood transfusion. However, head to head comparisons show a lower risk of death with lysine analogues when compared with aprotinin. The lysine analogues are effective in reducing blood loss during and after surgery, and appear to be free of serious adverse effects.

The safety of aprotinin and lysine-derived antifibrinolytic drugs in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Because of recent concerns about the safety of aprotinin, we updated our 2007 Cochrane review that compared the relative benefits and risks of aprotinin and the lysine analogues tranexamic acid and epsilon aminocaproic acid.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google and Google Scholar for trials of antifibrinolytic drugs used in adults scheduled for cardiac surgery. Searches were updated to January 2008. By comparing aprotinin and the 2 lysine analogues to control, we derived indirect head-to-head comparisons of aprotinin to the other drugs. We derived direct estimates of risks and benefits by pooling estimates from head-to-head trials of aprotinin and tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid.

RESULTS

For indirect estimates, we identified 49 trials involving 182 deaths among 7439 participants. The summary relative risk (RR) for death with aprotinin versus placebo was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.25). In the 19 trials that included tranexamic acid, there were 24 deaths among 1802 participants. The summary RR was 0.55 (95% CI 0.24-1.25). From the risk estimates derived for individual drugs, we calculated an indirect summary RR of death with use of aprotinin versus tranexamic acid of 1.69 (95% CI 0.70-4.10). To calculate direct estimates of death for aprotinin versus tranexamic acid, we identified 13 trials with 107 deaths among 3537 participants. The summary RR was 1.43 (95% CI 0.98-2.08). Among the 1840 participants, the calculated estimates of death for aprotinin compared directly to epsilon aminocaproic acid was 1.49 (95% CI 0.98-2.28). We found no evidence of an increased risk of myocardial infarction with use of aprotinin compared with the lysine analogues in either direct or indirect analyses. Compared with placebo or no treatment, all 3 drugs were effective in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusion. The RR of transfusion with use of aprotinin was 0.66 (95% CI 0.61-0.72). The RR of transfusion was 0.70 (95% CI 0.61-0.80) for tranexamic acid, and it was 0.75 (95% CI 0.58-0.96) for use of epsilon aminocaproic acid. Aprotinin was also effective in reducing the need for re-operation because of bleeding (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67).

INTERPRETATION

The risk of death tended to be consistently higher with use of aprotinin than with use of lysine analogues. Aprotinin had no clear advantages to offset these harms. Either tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid should be recommended to prevent bleeding after cardiac surgery.

Meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and adverse outcomes of antifibrinolytic agents in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Since the 1980s, antifibrinolytic therapies have assisted surgical teams in reducing the amount of blood loss. To date, however, serious questions remain regarding the safety and effectiveness of these agents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis to compare aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid, and tranexamic acid with placebo and head to head on 8 clinical outcomes from 138 trials. Published randomized controlled trial data were collected from OVID/PubMed. Outcomes included total blood loss, transfusion of packed red blood cells, reexploration, mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, dialysis-dependent renal failure, and renal dysfunction (0.5-mg/dL increase in creatinine from baseline). All agents were effective in significantly reducing blood loss by 226 to 348 mL and the proportion of patients transfused with packed red blood cells over placebo. Only high-dose aprotinin reduced the rate of reexploration (relative risk, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.73). There were no significant risks or benefits for any agent for mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure. However, high-dose aprotinin significantly increased the risk of renal dysfunction (relative risk, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.94), 12.9% versus 8.4%. Compared head to head, high-dose aprotinin demonstrated significant reduction in total blood loss over epsilon-aminocaproic acid (-184 mL; 95% CI, -256 to -112) and tranexamic acid (-195 mL; 95% CI, -286 to -105). There were no significant differences among any agent when compared head to head on other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

All antifibrinolytic agents were effective in reducing blood loss and transfusion. There were no significant risks or benefits for mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure. However, high-dose aprotinin was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of renal dysfunction.