BACKGROUND: Although aprotinin is known to be effective in reducing postoperative hemorrhage after cardiac surgery, epsilon-aminocaproic acid, an alternative antifibrinolytic, is considerably less expensive. Because the results of 3 small randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 agents directly were inconclusive, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the relative effectiveness and adverse-effect profile of these 2 agents against placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 52 randomized clinical trials published between 1985 and 1998 involving the use of epsilon-aminocaproic acid (n=9) or aprotinin (n=46) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery were abstracted. Our primary outcomes were total blood loss, red blood cell transfusion rates and amounts, reexploration, stroke, myocardial infarction, and mortality. The meta-analysis revealed substantial reductions in total blood loss with epsilon-aminocaproic acid and low-dose aprotinin (each with a 35% reduction versus placebo, P<0.001) and high-dose aprotinin (53% reduction, P<0.001). There were identical reductions in total postoperative transfusions with epsilon-aminocaproic acid (61% reduction versus placebo, P<0. 010) and high-dose aprotinin (62% reduction, P<0.001). The proportion of patients transfused was similarly reduced with epsilon-aminocaproic acid (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.69) and high-dose aprotinin (OR, 0.28; 0.22 to 0.37). Although both drugs reduced rates of reexploration to similar degrees, this effect was statistically significant only with high-dose aprotinin (OR, 0.39; 0. 24 to 0.61). epsilon-Aminocaproic acid and aprotinin had no effect on risks of postoperative myocardial infarction or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Because the 2 antifibrinolytic agents appear to have similar efficacies, the considerably less-expensive epsilon-aminocaproic acid may be preferred over aprotinin for reducing hemorrhage with cardiac surgery.
BACKGROUND: Although aprotinin is known to be effective in reducing postoperative hemorrhage after cardiac surgery, epsilon-aminocaproic acid, an alternative antifibrinolytic, is considerably less expensive. Because the results of 3 small randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 agents directly were inconclusive, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the relative effectiveness and adverse-effect profile of these 2 agents against placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 52 randomized clinical trials published between 1985 and 1998 involving the use of epsilon-aminocaproic acid (n=9) or aprotinin (n=46) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery were abstracted. Our primary outcomes were total blood loss, red blood cell transfusion rates and amounts, reexploration, stroke, myocardial infarction, and mortality. The meta-analysis revealed substantial reductions in total blood loss with epsilon-aminocaproic acid and low-dose aprotinin (each with a 35% reduction versus placebo, P<0.001) and high-dose aprotinin (53% reduction, P<0.001). There were identical reductions in total postoperative transfusions with epsilon-aminocaproic acid (61% reduction versus placebo, P<0. 010) and high-dose aprotinin (62% reduction, P<0.001). The proportion of patients transfused was similarly reduced with epsilon-aminocaproic acid (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.69) and high-dose aprotinin (OR, 0.28; 0.22 to 0.37). Although both drugs reduced rates of reexploration to similar degrees, this effect was statistically significant only with high-dose aprotinin (OR, 0.39; 0. 24 to 0.61). epsilon-Aminocaproic acid and aprotinin had no effect on risks of postoperative myocardial infarction or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Because the 2 antifibrinolytic agents appear to have similar efficacies, the considerably less-expensive epsilon-aminocaproic acid may be preferred over aprotinin for reducing hemorrhage with cardiac surgery.
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
Authors: Ian J Welsby; Mihai V Podgoreanu; Barbara Phillips-Bute; Richard Morris; Joseph P Mathew; Peter K Smith; Mark F Newman; Debra A Schwinn; Mark Stafford-Smith Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Bruce H Dorman; Robert E Stroud; Michael M Wyckoff; James L Zellner; Don Botta; Amy H Leonardi; John S Ikonomidis; Francis G Spinale Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Christopher M Blanchette; Peter F Wang; Ashish V Joshi; Mikael Asmussen; William Saunders; Peter Kruse Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 3.134