OBJECTIVE: Use of aprotinin has been suspended in cardiac surgery since recent studies reported its risks associated with mortality and other adverse events. This study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of aprotinin through a comparison before and after aprotinin was suspended in cardiac surgery. METHODS: We designed a case-control study in two groups of patients who underwent cardiac surgery just before and after aprotinin was suspended in China. The aprotinin group (n = 1699) was defined as operations performed from June 19, 2007, to December 18, 2007, when aprotinin was used in all the patients. The control group (n = 2225) was defined as operations performed from December 19, 2007, to June 18, 2008, when aprotinin was not used. We compared early postoperative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: The aprotinin group had less postoperative blood loss, transfusion requirement, and reoperation for bleeding. Application of aprotinin did not increase the risk of in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs 1.0%; P = .08) and other major adverse outcome events, including renal, cardiac, neurologic, and pulmonary complications. The aprotinin group had a shorter mechanical ventilation time (P = .04), a lower rate of delayed mechanical ventilation time (P = .04), and a higher arterial oxygen tension/inspired oxygen fraction ratio in arterial blood gas analysis (P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed findings from univariate analysis. After propensity adjustment for the baseline characteristics, we obtained similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of aprotinin in cardiac surgery could reduce blood loss and transfusion requirement significantly and showed a protective effect on the lungs, but it did not increase the risk of mortality or major complications.
OBJECTIVE: Use of aprotinin has been suspended in cardiac surgery since recent studies reported its risks associated with mortality and other adverse events. This study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of aprotinin through a comparison before and after aprotinin was suspended in cardiac surgery. METHODS: We designed a case-control study in two groups of patients who underwent cardiac surgery just before and after aprotinin was suspended in China. The aprotinin group (n = 1699) was defined as operations performed from June 19, 2007, to December 18, 2007, when aprotinin was used in all the patients. The control group (n = 2225) was defined as operations performed from December 19, 2007, to June 18, 2008, when aprotinin was not used. We compared early postoperative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: The aprotinin group had less postoperative blood loss, transfusion requirement, and reoperation for bleeding. Application of aprotinin did not increase the risk of in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs 1.0%; P = .08) and other major adverse outcome events, including renal, cardiac, neurologic, and pulmonary complications. The aprotinin group had a shorter mechanical ventilation time (P = .04), a lower rate of delayed mechanical ventilation time (P = .04), and a higher arterial oxygen tension/inspired oxygen fraction ratio in arterial blood gas analysis (P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed findings from univariate analysis. After propensity adjustment for the baseline characteristics, we obtained similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of aprotinin in cardiac surgery could reduce blood loss and transfusion requirement significantly and showed a protective effect on the lungs, but it did not increase the risk of mortality or major complications.