[Efficacy of different doses and timing of tranexamic acid in major orthopedic surgeries: a randomized trial]

Does tranexamic acid diminish hemorrhage and pain in open elbow arthrolysis? a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Effective hemostasis has the potential to reduce inflammation and pain, leading to potential benefits in the early rehabilitation of patients who undergo elbow arthrolysis. In the present study, we aim to assesse the effects of tranexamic acid (TXA) on elbow arthrolysis postoperative blood loss, patients' pain perception according to the visual analog scale (VAS), elbow range of motion (ROM), and complications.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library. We included controlled trials, either randomized (RCT) or non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) comparing the effects of intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) treatment with placebo/no treatment on postoperative blood loss, pain VAS score, elbow ROM, and complications, in patients who underwent open or closed elbow arthrolysis surgery.

RESULTS

One RCT, and three NRSIs met eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis determined that tranexamic acid application reduced drain output 34 mm on average (WMD: -34.00; 95% CI: -49.45, -18.55). There was a discrepancy among included articles in terms of intra-operative blood loss; although the study with the largest sample size (291 and 296 patients in the case and control groups, respectively) reported reduced intra-operative blood loss in patients who received TXA. The pooled estimation for the pain VAS score on the first day post-operatively indicates a reduction in pain among patients in the TXA group (WMD: -0.82; 95% CI: -1.36, -0.28). Results for ROM, and complications' rate such as hematoma and ulnar nerve palsy were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TXA may be beneficial to reduce elbow arthrolysis bleeding volume. However, it dose not seem to affect final elbow ROM and patients' pain score. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to draw a robust conclusion on this topic.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic and long bone fractures

BACKGROUND

Pelvic, hip, and long bone fractures can result in significant bleeding at the time of injury, with further blood loss if they are treated with surgical fixation. People undergoing surgery are therefore at risk of requiring a blood transfusion and may be at risk of peri-operative anaemia. Pharmacological interventions for blood conservation may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion and associated complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions for reducing blood loss in definitive surgical fixation of the hip, pelvic, and long bones.

SEARCH METHODS

We used a predefined search strategy to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from inception to 7 April 2022, without restrictions on language, year, or publication status. We handsearched reference lists of included trials to identify further relevant trials. We contacted authors of ongoing trials to acquire any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent trauma (non-elective) surgery for definitive fixation of hip, pelvic, and long bone (pelvis, tibia, femur, humerus, radius, ulna and clavicle) fractures only. There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity, or age. We excluded planned (elective) procedures (e.g. scheduled total hip arthroplasty), and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered. Eligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants, and non-fibrin sealants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We did not perform a network meta-analysis due to lack of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (929 participants), published between 2005 and 2021. Three trials did not report any of our predefined outcomes and so were not included in quantitative analyses (all were tranexamic acid versus placebo). We identified three comparisons of interest: intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo; topical tranexamic acid versus placebo; and recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo. We rated the certainty of evidence as very low to low across all outcomes. Comparison 1. Intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo Intravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69; 6 RCTs, 457 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.77; 2 RCTs, 147 participants; low-certainty evidence).  It may result in little to no difference in risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 199 participants; low-certainty evidence), and cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 3 RCTs, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain if there is a difference between groups for risk of deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.22 to 21.35; 4 RCTs, 329 participants, very low-certainty evidence), pulmonary embolism (Peto OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.66; 4 RCTs, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and suspected serious drug reactions (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, or acute transfusion reaction. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures), and upgraded the evidence for transfusion requirement for a large effect.  Comparison 2. Topical tranexamic acid versus placebo We are uncertain if there is a difference between topical tranexamic acid and placebo for risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 101 participants), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 36 participants), risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.62; 1 RCT, 36 participants), cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 1 RCT, 65 participants); and deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.77; 2 RCTs, 101 participants).  All outcomes reported were very low-certainty evidence. No data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, incidence of pulmonary embolism, acute transfusion reaction, or suspected serious drug reactions. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), inconsistency (moderate heterogeneity), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures, and high risk of attrition and reporting biases in one trial). Comparison 3. Recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo   Only one RCT of 48 participants reported data for recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo, so we have not presented the results here.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot draw conclusions from the current evidence due to lack of data. Most published studies included in our analyses assessed the use of tranexamic acid (compared to placebo, or using different routes of administration).  We identified 27 prospectively registered ongoing RCTs (total target recruitment of 4177 participants by end of 2023). The ongoing trials create six new comparisons: tranexamic acid (tablet + injection) versus placebo; intravenous tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; topical tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; different intravenous tranexamic acid dosing regimes; topical tranexamic acid versus topical fibrin glue; and fibrinogen (injection) versus placebo.

Efficacy of high dose tranexamic acid (TXA) for hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Standard dose (≤ 1 g) tranexamic acid (TXA) has established mortality benefit in trauma patients. The role of high dose IV TXA (≥2 g or ≥30 mg/kg as a single bolus) has been evaluated in the surgical setting, however, it has not been studied in trauma. We reviewed the available evidence of high dose IV TXA in any setting with the goal of informing its use in the adult trauma population.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and unpublished sources from inception until July 27, 2022 for studies that compared standard dose with high dose IV TXA in adults (≥ 16 years of age) with hemorrhage. Screening and data abstraction was done independently and in duplicate. We pooled trial data using a random effects model and considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies separately. We assessed the individual study risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational cohort studies. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

RESULTS

We included 20 studies with a combined total of 12,523 patients. Based on pooled RCT data, and as compared to standard dose TXA, high dose IV TXA probably decreases transfusion requirements (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 0.97, moderate certainty) but with possibly no effect on blood loss (mean difference [MD] 43.31 ml less, 95% CI 135.53 to 48.90 ml less, low certainty), and an uncertain effect on thromboembolic events (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04, very low certainty) and mortality (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.32, very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

When compared to standard dose, high dose IV TXA probably reduces transfusion requirements with an uncertain effect on thromboembolic events and mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level IV.

Clinical use of tranexamic acid: evidences and controversies

Tranexamic acid (TXA) significantly reduces blood loss in a wide range of surgical procedures and improves survival rates in obstetric and trauma patients with severe bleeding. Although it mainly acts as a fibrinolysis inhibitor, it also has an anti-inflammatory effect, and may help attenuate the systemic inflammatory response syndrome found in some cardiac surgery patients. However, the administration of high doses of TXA has been associated with seizures and other adverse effects that increase the cost of care, and the administration of TXA to reduce perioperative bleeding needs to be standardized. Tranexamic acid is generally well tolerated, and most adverse reactions are considered mild or moderate. Severe events are rare in clinical trials, and literature reviews have shown tranexamic acid to be safe in several different surgical procedures. However, after many years of experience with TXA in various fields, such as orthopedic surgery, clinicians are now querying whether the dosage, route and interval of administration currently used and the methods used to control and analyze the antifibrinolytic mechanism of TXA are really optimal. These issues need to be evaluated and reviewed using the latest evidence to improve the safety and effectiveness of TXA in treating intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding in procedures such as liver transplantation, and cardiac, trauma and obstetric surgery.