Postoperative use of aprotinin in cardiac operations: an alternative to its prophylactic use

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 The safety of the most popular agent, aprotinin, has been challenged, and it was withdrawn from world markets in May 2008 because of concerns that it increased the risk of cardiovascular complications and death.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.

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 and the need for transfusion. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the comparative performance of the drugs and the safety of the most popular agent, aprotinin.

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 (RBC) transfusion, and adverse events, particularly vascular occlusion, renal dysfunction, and death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the internet. 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 2006.

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 211 RCTs that recruited 20,781 participants. Data from placebo/inactive controlled trials, and from head-to-head trials suggest an advantage of aprotinin over the lysine analogues TXA and EACA in terms of operative blood loss, but the differences were small. Aprotinin reduced the probability of requiring RBC transfusion by a relative 34% (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 0.71). The RR for RBC transfusion with TXA was 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69) and it was 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.96) 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 superior in reducing the need for RBC transfusion: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). Aprotinin reduced the need for re-operation due to bleeding: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.68). This translates into an absolute risk reduction of just under 3% and a number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 37 (95% CI 27 to 56). Similar trends were seen with TXA and EACA, but the data were sparse and the differences failed to reach statistical significance. The blood transfusion data were heterogeneous and funnel plots indicate that trials of aprotinin and the lysine analogues may be subject to publication bias. Evidence of publication bias was not observed in trials reporting re-operation rates. Adjustment for these effects reduced the magnitude of estimated benefits but did not negate treatment effects. However, the apparent advantage of aprotinin over the lysine analogues was small and may be explained by publication bias and non-equivalent drug doses. Aprotinin did not increase the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18), stroke (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.64) renal dysfunction (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70) or overall mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20). The analyses of myocardial infarction and death included data from the majority of subjects recruited into the clinical trials of aprotinin. However, under-reporting of renal events could explain the lack of effect seen with aprotinin. Similar trends were seen with the lysine analogues but data were sparse. These results conflict with the results of recently published non-randomised studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anti-fibrinolytic drugs provide worthwhile reductions in blood loss and the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion. Based on the results of randomised trials their efficacy does not appear to be offset by serious adverse effects. In most circumstances the lysine analogues are probably as effective as aprotinin and are cheaper; the evidence is stronger for tranexamic acid than for aminocaproic acid. In high risk cardiac surgery, where there is a substantial probability of serious blood loss, aprotinin may be preferred over tranexamic acid. Aprotinin does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of vascular occlusion and death, but the data do not exclude an increased risk of renal failure. There is no need for further placebo-controlled trials of aprotinin or lysine analogues in cardiac surgery. The principal need is for large comparative trials to assess the relative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of anti-fibrinolytic drugs in different surgical procedures.

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.

Practical management of anticoagulation, bleeding and blood product support for cardiac surgery. Part one: bleeding and anticoagulation issues

There are many challenging problems related to bleeding and anticoagulation in cardiac surgery. Practical guidelines, which are based on available evidence, can help to direct management issues of post-bypass bleeding, perioperative anticoagulation and the use of haemostatic agents. The patient's bleeding history is the most useful preoperative screening test of haemostasis. The input of a haematologist is often valuable in a number of areas, such as preoperative assessment of patients with a significant history of bleeding, or past history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a lupus anticoagulant, or recent venous thromboembolism. Cardiothoracic surgeons, anaesthetists, perfusionists and haematologists can ensure 'best practice' by being actively involved in the development of 'local' transfusion and anticoagulation guidelines, hospital transfusion committee policies, and audits.

Comparison of structured use of routine laboratory tests or near-patient assessment with clinical judgement in the management of bleeding after cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Using algorithms based on point of care coagulation tests can decrease blood loss and blood component transfusion after cardiac surgery. We wished to test the hypothesis that a management algorithm based on near-patient tests would reduce blood loss and blood component use after routine coronary artery surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass when compared with an algorithm based on routine laboratory assays or with clinical judgement.

METHODS

Patients (n=102) undergoing elective coronary artery surgery with cardiac bypass were randomized into two groups. In the point of care group, the management algorithm was based on information provided by three devices, the Hepcon, thromboelastography and the PFA-100 platelet function analyser. Management in the laboratory test group depended on rapidly available laboratory clotting tests and transfusion of haemostatic blood components only if specific criteria were met. Blood loss and transfusion was compared between these two groups and with a retrospective case-control group (n=108), in which management of bleeding had been according to the clinician's discretion.

RESULTS

All three groups had similar median blood losses. The transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) and blood components was greater in the clinician discretion group (P<0.05) but there was no difference in the transfusion of PRBCs and blood components between the two algorithm-guided groups.

CONCLUSION

Following algorithms based on point of care tests or on structured clinical practice with standard laboratory tests does not decrease blood loss, but reduces the transfusion of PRBCs and blood components after routine cardiac surgery, when compared with clinician discretion. Cardiac surgery services should use transfusion guidelines based on laboratory-guided algorithms, and the possible benefits of point of care testing should be tested against this standard.

Avoidance of Bleeding During Surgery in Patients Receiving Anticoagulant and/or Antiplatelet Therapy

Perioperative management of chronically anticoagulated patients and/or patients treated with antiplatelet therapy is a complex medical problem. This review considers the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of commonly used antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs with special emphasis on loss of effects after discontinuation and possible counteracting (or antidote) strategies. These drugs are aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), ticlopidine/clopidogrel, abciximab, tirofiban and eptifibatide, heparin (unfractionated and low-molecular-weight), warfarin and direct thrombin inhibitors. Since the pharmacological mechanisms of some of these drugs are based on irreversible or slowly reversible effects, their pharmacokinetic profiles are not necessarily predictive for their pharmacodynamic profiles. A close and direct relationship between plasma concentrations and effects is seen only for the glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors tirofiban and eptifibatide with a fast off-rate for dissociation from the GPIIb/IIIa receptor, and for direct thrombin inhibitors (hirudin and argatroban). For other compounds, drug concentrations in plasma and pharmacodynamic effects are not closely correlated because of, for example, irreversible binding to their target (aspirin, clopidogrel and abciximab), inhibition of the generation of a subset of clotting factors with differing regeneration and degradation rates (coumarins) or sustained binding to the vascular wall (heparins). Surgery in patients on anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be categorised as: (i) elective versus urgent; and (ii) cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) versus non-CPB. Monotherapy with clopidogrel or aspirin need not be discontinued in elective non-CPB surgery, and temporary discontinuation of warfarin should be accompanied by preoperative intravenous heparin only in selected high-risk patients. Vitamin K as an antidote for warfarin should only be used subcutaneously and solely in urgent/emergency surgery. In elective surgery requiring CPB (coronary artery bypass grafting), it is recommended to discontinue aspirin 7 days preoperatively in patients with a low risk profile. Patients requiring urgent CPB surgery (e.g. after failure of a percutaneous coronary angioplasty with or without coronary stent deployment) are usually pretreated with several antiplatelet agents (e.g. aspirin and clopidogrel, together with a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor) together with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin. With judicious planning, urgent/emergency cardiac surgery can be safely performed on these patients. Delaying surgery (e.g. for 12 hours in patients treated with abciximab) should be considered if possible. Standard heparin doses should be given to achieve optimal anticoagulation for CPB. Prophylactic use of aprotinin (intra- and/or postoperatively), aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid should be considered. Early (in the operating theatre prior to chest closure) and judicious use of replacement blood products (platelets) should be commenced when clinically indicated.

Does tranexamic acid reduce desmopressin-induced hyperfibrinolysis?

OBJECTIVE

Desmopressin releases tissue-type plasminogen activator, which augments cardiopulmonary bypass--associated hyperfibrinolysis, causing excessive bleeding. Combined use of desmopressin with prior administration of the antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid may decrease fibrinolytic activity and might improve postoperative hemostasis.

METHODS

This prospective randomized study was carried out with 100 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass operations between April 1999 and November 2000 in Gülhane Military Medical Academy. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Desmopressin (0.3 microg/kg) was administrated just after cardiopulmonary bypass and after protamine infusion in group 1 (n = 50). Both desmopressin and tranexamic acid (before the skin incision at a loading dose of 10 mg/kg over 30 minutes and followed by 12 hours of 1 mg.kg(-1).h(-1)) were administrated in group 2 (n = 50).

RESULTS

Significantly less drainage was noted in group 2 (1010 +/- 49.9 mL vs 623 +/- 41.3 mL, P =.0001). Packed red blood cells were transfused at 2.1 +/- 0.5 units per patient in group 1 versus 0.9 +/- 0.3 units in group 2 (P =.0001). Fresh frozen plasma was transfused at 1.84 +/- 0.17 units per patient in group 1 versus 0.76 +/- 0.14 units in group 2 (P =.0001). Only 24% of patients in group 2 required donor blood or blood products compared with 74% of those in the isolated desmopressin group (group 1, P =.00001). Group 1 and group 2 findings were as follows: postoperative fibrinogen, 113 +/- 56.3 mg/dL versus 167 +/- 45.8 mg/dL (P =.0001); fibrin split product, 21.2 +/- 2.3 ng/mL versus 13.5 +/- 3.4 ng/mL (P =.0001); and postoperative hemoglobin level, 7.6 plus minus 1.2 g/dL versus 9.1 plus minus 1.2 g/dL (P =.0001).

CONCLUSION

Tranexamic acid administration significantly reduces desmopressin and bypass-induced hyperfibrinolysis. Combined use of tranexamic acid and desmopressin decreases both postoperative blood loss and transfusion requirement.

Anti-fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted re-consideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) blood transfusion.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the anti-fibrinolytic drugs aprotinin, tranexamic acid, and epsilon aminocaproic acid, on peri-operative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (to May 1998), EMBASE (to December 1997), web sites of international health technology assessment agencies (to May 1998). References in identified trials and review articles were checked and authors contacted to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of anti-fibrinolytic drugs in adults scheduled for non-urgent surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 61 trials of aprotinin (7027 participants). Aprotinin reduced the rate of RBC transfusion by a relative 30% (RR=0.70: 95%CI: 0.64 to 0.76). The average absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 20.4% (95%CI: 15.6% to 25.3%). On average, aprotinin use saved 1.1 units of RBC (95%CI: 0.69 to 1.47) in those requiring transfusion. Aprotinin also significantly reduced the need for re-operation due to bleeding (RR=0.40: 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.66). We found 18 trials of tranexamic acid (TXA) (1,342 participants). TXA reduced the rate of RBC transfusion by a relative 34% (RR=0.66: 95%CI: 0.54 to 0.81). This represented an ARR of 17.2% (95%CI: 8.7% to 25.7%). TXA use resulted in a saving of 1.03 units of RBC (95%CI: 0.67 to 1.39) in those requiring transfusion. We found four trials of epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA) (208 participants). EACA use resulted in a statistically non-significant reduction in RBC transfusion (RR=0.48: 95%CI: 0.19 to 1.19). Comparisons between agents Eight trials made 'head-to-head' comparisons between TXA and aprotinin. There was no significant difference between the two drugs in the rate of RBC transfusion: RR=1.21 (95%CI: 0.83 to 1.76) for TXA compared to aprotinin. Adverse Effects Aprotinin did not seem to be associated with an excess risk of adverse effects, including thrombo-embolic events (thrombosis RR=0.64: 95%CI: 0.31 to 1.31) and renal failure (RR=1.19: 95%CI: 0.79 to 1.79). Fewer data were available for TXA and EACA.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

From this review it appears that aprotinin reduces the need for red cell transfusion, and the need for re-operation due to bleeding, without serious adverse effects. However, there was significant heterogeneity in trial outcomes, and some evidence of publication bias. Similar trends were seen with TXA and EACA, although the data were rather sparse. The poor evaluation of these latter drugs is unfortunate as results suggest they may be equally as effective as aprotinin, but are significantly cheaper. The evidence reviewed here supports the use of aprotinin in cardiac surgery. Further small trials of this drug are not warranted. Future trials should be large enough to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of aprotinin with that of TXA and EACA.

Role of aprotinin in the management of patients during and after cardiac surgery

Management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery has evolved in recent years as more is understood about the physiological changes and responses that occur during and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). In particular, our understanding of the mechanisms involved in haemostasis and in the inflammatory response to bypass surgery, has allowed significant refinements in patient management. Improvements in the pharmacological conservation of blood loss have been striking, particularly with the development of the serine protease inhibitor, aprotinin (Trasylol, Bayer). Aprotinin represents a significant improvement, especially for patients at high risk, since it reduces the need for allogeneic and (sometimes scarce) blood products. However, in view of its cost, making an appropriate selection of patients most at risk of serious blood loss is a major consideration in the use of aprotinin. While its mechanisms of action are not well understood, the use of aprotinin also appears to reduce inflammatory response to CPB.

Low-dose aprotinin is ineffective to treat excessive bleeding after cardiopulmonary bypass

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled clinical experience at our institution suggested that low-dose aprotinin could control excessive bleeding after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). A randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of low-dose aprotinin in the treatment of hemorrhage after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-one patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were included. Forty-four patients (26%) bled significantly in the intensive care unit (>100 mL/h) and received either aprotinin (200,000 KIU bolus + 100,000 KIU/h for 8 hours) or placebo in addition to our standard management of excessive bleeding.

RESULTS

Median bleeding before study drug administration was not different between aprotinin (200 mL) and placebo (212.5 mL) groups. Bleeding decreased significantly with time and similarly in both groups. Ninety-five percent of patients required transfusions in both groups. Median blood products transfused were 13 and 8 units per patient in the aprotinin and placebo groups respectively (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine administration of low-dose aprotinin as part of the treatment protocol to control hemorrhage after CPB does not reduce bleeding or transfusion requirements and, therefore, cannot be recommended.