INTRODUCTION:Aprotinin (AP) reduces blood loss and transfusions after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), but may sensitise patients and is expensive. Tranexamic acid (TA) has less side-effects, but data regarding its efficacy are controversial. The aim of our prospective, randomised, double-blind study was to compare the impact of AP vs. TA on drainage blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing first time CABG on CPB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty adult patients were randomised to receive either high-dose AP according to Hammersmith or a total of 2 g TA. Perioperative blood products were transfused in a standardised fashion. Blood loss was measured up to 24 h. Demographic and clinical patient data were collected until hospital discharge. RESULTS: The data from 118 patients (TA: n = 58, AP: n = 60) who completed the study according to protocol were analysed. Blood loss at 24 h postoperation in TA patients was significantly higher (896 +/- 354 ml) as compared to AP patients (756 +/- 347 ml; p = 0.03). TA patients received 1.5 +/- 1.5 units of red blood cells (AP: 1.5 +/- 1.7, p = 1.0), 1.3 +/- 2.0 units of fresh frozen plasma (AP: 1.0 +/- 2.0, p = 0.38) and 0.5 +/- 1.4 units of platelets (AP: 0.2 +/- 0.7, p = 0.15). Clinical data, including perioperative myocardial infarction rate, acute renal failure, mechanical ventilation, hospital stay and mortality, were not significantly different between either group. CONCLUSION: Our data show a difference in blood loss between TA and high-dose AP. Although statistically significant, it has little clinical relevance, because perioperative transfusion requirements were similar for both groups. Thus, TA appears to be a cost-effective alternative to AP in primary CABG patients.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Aprotinin (AP) reduces blood loss and transfusions after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), but may sensitise patients and is expensive. Tranexamic acid (TA) has less side-effects, but data regarding its efficacy are controversial. The aim of our prospective, randomised, double-blind study was to compare the impact of AP vs. TA on drainage blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing first time CABG on CPB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty adult patients were randomised to receive either high-dose AP according to Hammersmith or a total of 2 g TA. Perioperative blood products were transfused in a standardised fashion. Blood loss was measured up to 24 h. Demographic and clinical patient data were collected until hospital discharge. RESULTS: The data from 118 patients (TA: n = 58, AP: n = 60) who completed the study according to protocol were analysed. Blood loss at 24 h postoperation in TApatients was significantly higher (896 +/- 354 ml) as compared to AP patients (756 +/- 347 ml; p = 0.03). TApatients received 1.5 +/- 1.5 units of red blood cells (AP: 1.5 +/- 1.7, p = 1.0), 1.3 +/- 2.0 units of fresh frozen plasma (AP: 1.0 +/- 2.0, p = 0.38) and 0.5 +/- 1.4 units of platelets (AP: 0.2 +/- 0.7, p = 0.15). Clinical data, including perioperative myocardial infarction rate, acute renal failure, mechanical ventilation, hospital stay and mortality, were not significantly different between either group. CONCLUSION: Our data show a difference in blood loss between TA and high-dose AP. Although statistically significant, it has little clinical relevance, because perioperative transfusion requirements were similar for both groups. Thus, TA appears to be a cost-effective alternative to AP in primary CABG patients.
Authors: David A Henry; Paul A Carless; Annette J Moxey; Dianne O'Connell; Barrie J Stokes; Dean A Fergusson; Katharine Ker Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-03-16