Aprotinin in elective primary bypass surgery. Graft patency and clinical efficacy

Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?

Background Aprotinin is a serine protease inhibitor used to limit perioperative bleeding and reduce the need for donated blood transfusions during cardiac surgery. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin evaluating its effect on the outcome of perioperative transfusion have been published since 1987, and systematic reviews were conducted in 1992 and 1997.

Methods A systematic search was conducted for all RCTs of aprotinin that used placebo controls or were open-label with no active control treatment. Data collected included the primary outcome, objective of each study, whether a systematic review was cited or conducted as part of the background and/or rationale for the study and the number of previously published RCTs cited. Cumulative meta-analyses were performed.

Results Sixty-four randomized, controlled trials of aprotinin were found, conducted between 1987 and 2002, reporting an endpoint of perioperative transfusion. Median trial size was 64 subjects, with a range of 20 to 1784. A cumulative meta-analysis indicated that aprotinin greatly decreased the need for perioperative transfusion, stabilizing at an odds ratio of 0.25 (p, 10 2 6) by the 12th study, published in June of 1992. The upper limit of the confidence interval never exceeded 0.65 and results were similar in all subgroups. Citation of previous RCTs was extremely low, with a median of 20% of prior trials cited. Only 7 of 44 (15%) of subsequent reports referenced the largest trial (N 1/4 1784), which was 28 times larger than the median trial size.

Conclusions This study demonstrates that investigators evaluating aprotinin were not adequately citing previous research, resulting in a large number of RCTs being conducted to address efficacy questions that prior trials had already definitively answered. Institutional review boards and journals could reduce the number of redundant trials by requiring investigators to conduct adequate searches for prior evidence and conducting systematic reviews.

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.

Antifibrinolytic use in adult cardiac surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antifibrinolytics are used to attenuate the coagulopathy associated with cardiopulmonary bypass. However, recent studies suggest that the antifibrinolytic aprotinin is associated with increased renal and vascular events and death compared to its alternatives. To develop a recommendation for antifibrinolytic use in adult cardiac surgery, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association of the antifibrinolytics with efficacy, safety and cost outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Aprotinin, when compared to placebo, significantly decreased blood transfusions and reoperations for bleeding, strokes and cognitive dysfunction, and significantly increased renal dysfunction but not renal failure. Tranexamic acid significantly decreased blood transfusions, but was not statistically associated with other outcomes. Aminocaproic acid was not statistically associated with any measured outcome. Although aprotinin costs more than its alternatives, its costs may approximate those of its alternatives when longer time horizons are considered.

SUMMARY

We support the targeted use of aprotinin in adult cardiac surgery patients at high risk for bleeding or stroke, and discourage the use of aprotinin in those at high risk for renal failure. Although fewer data are available for tranexamic and aminocaproic acid, we support their use as alternatives to aprotinin in those at high risk for bleeding.

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.

Aprotinin Use in Cardiac Surgery Patients at Low Risk for Requiring Blood Transfusion

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To determine if aprotinin is safe and effective in patients at low risk for requiring blood transfusion after cardiac surgery by evaluating whether there is any significant difference in blood product use or other significant clinical outcomes between patients who received aprotinin versus those who did not.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Inpatient community nonteaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Three hundred thirty-five patients who underwent primary cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass between November 1, 2003, and December 31, 2005, and were considered at low risk for requiring postoperative blood transfusion; 162 patients received aprotinin and 173 patients received aminocaproic acid (control).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Comparison of patients in the aprotinin group versus those in the aminocaproic acid group revealed no difference in total donor exposures to blood products (1.86 vs 1.16 units/patient, p=0.07), total packed red blood cells (PRBCs) received (1.25 vs 0.86 units/patient, p=0.09), postoperative donor exposures to blood products (0.91 vs 0.48 unit/patient, p=0.13), or postoperative PRBCs received (0.61 vs 0.40 unit/patient, p=0.23). No difference was noted in any other clinical outcome in the aprotinin group versus the aminocaproic acid group, including postoperative azotemia (13.0% vs 10.4%, p=0.46), new onset of atrial fibrillation (14.8% vs 15.0%, p=0.95), myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. Mean +/- SD total hospital length of stay was similar in the aprotinin group versus the aminocaproic acid group (8.1 +/- 3.8 vs 7.4 +/- 2.8 days, p=0.08), but length of stay from surgery to discharge was longer in the aprotinin group than in the aminocaproic acid group (5.9 +/- 0.17 vs 5.4 +/- 0.12 days, p=0.032).

CONCLUSION

Although aprotinin appeared to be safe in this low-risk patient population, it was not more effective than aminocaproic acid in reducing blood product use after cardiac surgery. More robust evidence is needed from a controlled randomized trial to demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic benefit of aprotinin.

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.

Is There Still a Role for Aprotinin in Cardiac Surgery?

Cardiac surgery is associated with a systemic inflammatory response and systemic coagulopathy, which can result in significant organ dysfunction and bleeding. Aprotinin, a serine protease inhibitor, can limit systemic inflammation, and has been associated with myocardial, pulmonary and cerebral protection in addition to its proven haemostatic efficacy. Data are currently conflicting regarding the haemostatic efficacy of aprotinin relative to alternative agents including tranexamic acid. Recent studies have demonstrated aprotinin usage is associated with increased rates of thrombotic and renal complications, but these findings are at odds with the majority of studies relating to aprotinin safety to date. The lack of adequately powered, randomised studies evaluating aprotinin and alternative agents limits drawing conclusions about the complete use or disuse of aprotinin presently and requires individualised patient selection based on bleeding risk and co-morbidities for its usage.

Comparison of three anesthetic techniques for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: General anesthesia, combined general and high thoracic epidural anesthesia, or high thoracic epidural anesthesia alone

OBJECTIVE

This study compared general anesthesia (GA), combined GA plus thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA), and TEA alone in patients scheduled for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

DESIGN

Prospective, nonrandomized clinical study

SETTING

University hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety consenting patients undergoing beating-heart coronary artery revascularization with comparable coronary status and left ventricular function.

INTERVENTIONS

GA (n=30) was conducted with propofol, remifentanil, and cisatracurium or combined with TEA (GA+TEA, n=30) or TEA as the sole anesthetic with ropivacaine plus sufentanil (TEA, n=30).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Groups were comparable regarding the surgical approaches and the number of anastomoses. Four patients (GA, n=2; GA+TEA, n=2) who required unplanned cardiopulmonary bypass, and 4 patients in the TEA group who underwent unexpected intubation because of pneumothorax (n=2), phrenic nerve palsy, or incomplete analgesia were excluded from further analysis. Intraoperative heart rate decreased significantly with both GA+TEA and TEA. None of the patients with TEA alone was admitted to the intensive care unit, they all were monitored on average for 6 hours postoperatively in the intermediate care unit and allowed to eat and drink as desired on admission. Postoperative pain scores were lower in both groups with TEA. There were no differences among groups in patients overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Based on the authors data, all anesthetic techniques were equally safe from the clinicians standpoint. However, GA+TEA appeared to be most comprehensive, allowing for revascularization of any coronary artery, providing good hemodynamic stability and reliable postoperative pain relief. Nonetheless, the actual and potential risks of TEA during cardiac surgery should not be underestimated.

Current status of antifibrinolytics in cardiopulmonary bypass and elective deep hypothermic circulatory arrest

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) results in many physiologic derangements, including activation of the hemostatic and fibrinolytic pathways. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) adds a further insult to the coagulation systems because it involves more extreme hypothermia and organ ischemia related to blood stasis. The abnormalities induced by CPB disrupt the checks and balances in the hemostatic and fibrinolytic systems, resulting in a pathologic state that leads to excessive bleeding and other perioperative complications. Prophylactic antifibrinolytic therapy can attenuate the response to this insult by restoring the delicate balance within these systems, potentially reducing the complication rate and improving patient outcomes.

Pharmacotherapeutic considerations in anesthesia

This article focuses on new findings leading to improved understanding of the pathophysiology and mechanisms of potential drug interactions between anesthetic drugs or techniques and cardiovascular medications in patients scheduled for surgery. Only the most frequently used drugs are reviewed. Elective surgery provides the luxury to consider these risks and alter therapy accordingly. Under urgent circumstances, however, the increased risks associated with these agents should be anticipated with the goal to minimize adverse effects while maintaining optimal cardiovascular function in the perioperative period.

Transfusion-sparing hemostatic agents

A variety of agents are available to improve hemostasis and reduce blood loss in multiple clinical settings. These agents are most commonly used to reduce bleeding when an underlying hemostatic defect is present. Some new agents offer the potential to decrease blood loss even in the absence of an obvious underlying hemostatic defect. The authors discuss the use of a variety of products to reduce bleeding and minimize transfusion of blood products in the setting of clotting factor deficiency or inhibition, platelet deficiency and/or dysfunction, increased fibrinolysis, therapeutic anticoagulation, and coagulopathies caused by dilution and consumption in the setting of trauma and surgery. The authors primarily focus on the available pharmaceuticals.

Safety and efficacy of methods for reducing perioperative allogeneic transfusion: a critical review of the literature

A number of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic technologies are in current use to minimize perioperative homologous blood use. Clinical trials, many of them randomized controlled trials, have been done evaluating these approaches and have demonstrated their efficacy. However, data on safety has relied mostly on case reports, uncontrolled studies, and, for the pharmacologic agents, extrapolation from the nonsurgical setting. In this review I analyze the data from the randomized trials and the lower-level evidence studies to provide the best estimates in safety with these alternatives. In general, these alternatives are safe with proper dosing and monitoring of effects. With aprotinin, the primary concern is anaphylaxis, and this predominantly with re-exposure. With aprotinin and with the anti-fibrinolytics, increased venous thromboembolic risk has not been a consistent finding. Tranexamic acid use intraoperatively is advantageous, but postoperative use appears to have no advantage and may be associated with renal dysfunction. DDAVP is low-risk, provided it is not overused, which can induce hyponatremia. Autologous predonation probably has similar risks as homologous blood with respect to transfusion errors and bacterial infection. As with most medical interventions, we must be vigilant to prevent human error.

The antithrombotic and antiinflammatory mechanisms of action of aprotinin

Aprotinin (Trasylol) is generally regarded to be an effective hemostatic agent that prevents blood loss and preserves platelet function during cardiac surgery procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP). However, its clinical use has been limited by the concern that such a potent hemostatic agent might be prothrombotic, particularly in relation to coronary vein graft occlusion. In this review we present a mechanism of action that challenges such a viewpoint and explains how aprotinin can be simultaneously hemostatic and antithrombotic. Aprotinin achieves these two apparently disparate properties by selectively blocking the proteolytically activated thrombin receptor on platelets, the protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1), while leaving other mechanisms of platelet aggregation unaffected. We also review recent research leading to the discovery of novel antiinflammatory targets for aprotinin. A better understanding of its mechanisms of action has led to the conclusion that aprotinin is a remarkable drug with the capacity to correct many of the imbalances that develop in the coagulation system and the inflammatory system after CPB. Nonetheless, it has been clinically underused for fear of causing thrombotic complications, a fear that in light of recent evidence may be unfounded.

New antiinflammatory and platelet-preserving effects of aprotinin

The clinical benefit of aprotinin with respect to improved hemostasis, platelet function, and inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery has been well documented, but these benefits have been overshadowed by the concern that such a potently hemostatic agent might also be prothrombotic. In this article, we discuss recent advances in the understanding of the basic mechanism of aprotinin that have led to the identification of new antiinflammatory targets and the discovery that aprotinin is, in fact, antithrombotic with respect to platelets. Its antithrombotic action is mediated by the selective blocking of the major thrombin receptor, the protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1), but not other receptors of platelet activation (ie, collagen, adenosine diphosphate [ADP], or epinephrine receptors). The selective targeting of PAR1 enables aprotinin to protect platelets from unwanted activation by thrombin generated during CPB surgery (consistent with a role in platelet-preservation), while permitting the participation of platelets in the formation of hemostatic plugs at wound and suture sites, where collagen, ADP, and epinephrine are most likely to be expressed. Aprotinin therefore exerts a subtle hemostatic yet antithrombotic mechanism of action, which, when allied with its multitiered antiinflammatory effect, makes this drug a valuable companion to cardiac surgery.

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.

Cancer treatment with inhibitors of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasmin

The urokinase-type plasminogen activator-plasmin system plays an important role in many normal physiological processes including clot lysis, wound healing, embryogenesis and tissue remodelling. It is also involved in the pathogenesis of human malignancy through its ability to mediate tumour cell growth, invasion and metastatic dissemination. Interfering with this system is an appealing approach for experimental therapy of malignancy for several reasons. This concept is supported by a wealth of preclinical data. Evidence exists suggesting a role for this system in several major human tumour types. Preliminary evidence suggests that agents which block this pathway are effective in therapeutic doses that are already defined and relatively non-toxic. This form of treatment is not likely to carry cross-resistance with other types of cancer therapy and should be applicable to both localised and advanced tumours. Since heterogeneity in responsiveness among various tumour types is expected, clinical effects in given tumours would provide a basis for interpreting mechanisms of tumour progression in vivo and for future development of drugs with improved efficacy. Inhibition of the urokinase-type plasminogen activator-plasmin system remains a promising, but largely untested, area of experimental cancer therapeutics.

Thromboelastography-guided transfusion algorithm reduces transfusions in complex cardiac surgery

Transfusion therapy after cardiac surgery is empirically guided, partly due to a lack of specific point-of-care hemostasis monitors. In a randomized, blinded, prospective trial, we studied cardiac surgical patients at moderate to high risk of transfusion. Patients were randomly assigned to either a thromboelastography (TEG)-guided transfusion algorithm (n = 53) or routine transfusion therapy (n = 52) for intervention after cardiopulmonary bypass. Coagulation tests, TEG variables, mediastinal tube drainage, and transfusions were compared at multiple time points. There were no demographic or hemostatic test result differences between groups, and all patients were given prophylactic antifibrinolytic therapy. Intraoperative transfusion rates did not differ, but there were significantly fewer postoperative and total transfusions in the TEG group. The proportion of patients receiving fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) was 4 of 53 in the TEG group compared with 16 of 52 in the control group (P < 0.002). Patients receiving platelets were 7 of 53 in the TEG group compared with 15 of 52 in the control group (P < 0.05). Patients in the TEG group also received less volume of FFP (36 +/- 142 vs 217 +/- 463 mL; P < 0.04). Mediastinal tube drainage was not statistically different 6, 12, or 24 h postoperatively. Point-of-care coagulation monitoring using TEG resulted in fewer transfusions in the postoperative period. We conclude that the reduction in transfusions may have been due to improved hemostasis in these patients who had earlier and specific identification of the hemostasis abnormality and thus received more appropriate intraoperative transfusion therapy. These data support the use of TEG in an algorithm to guide transfusion therapy in complex cardiac surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Transfusion of allogeneic blood products is common during complex cardiac surgical procedures. In a prospective, randomized trial, we compared a transfusion algorithm using point-of-care coagulation testing with routine laboratory testing, and found the algorithm to be effective in reducing transfusion requirements.

Thromboelastography-guided transfusion algorithm reduces transfusions in complex cardiac surgery

Transfusion therapy after cardiac surgery is empirically guided, partly due to a lack of specific point-of-care hemostasis monitors. In a randomized, blinded, prospective trial, we studied cardiac surgical patients at moderate to high risk of transfusion. Patients were randomly assigned to either a thromboelastography (TEG)-guided transfusion algorithm (n = 53) or routine transfusion therapy (n = 52) for intervention after cardiopulmonary bypass. Coagulation tests, TEG variables, mediastinal tube drainage, and transfusions were compared at multiple time points. There were no demographic or hemostatic test result differences between groups, and all patients were given prophylactic antifibrinolytic therapy. Intraoperative transfusion rates did not differ, but there were significantly fewer postoperative and total transfusions in the TEG group. The proportion of patients receiving fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) was 4 of 53 in the TEG group compared with 16 of 52 in the control group (P < 0.002). Patients receiving platelets were 7 of 53 in the TEG group compared with 15 of 52 in the control group (P < 0.05). Patients in the TEG group also received less volume of FFP (36 +/- 142 vs 217 +/- 463 mL; P < 0.04). Mediastinal tube drainage was not statistically different 6, 12, or 24 h postoperatively. Point-of-care coagulation monitoring using TEG resulted in fewer transfusions in the postoperative period. We conclude that the reduction in transfusions may have been due to improved hemostasis in these patients who had earlier and specific identification of the hemostasis abnormality and thus received more appropriate intraoperative transfusion therapy. These data support the use of TEG in an algorithm to guide transfusion therapy in complex cardiac surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Transfusion of allogeneic blood products is common during complex cardiac surgical procedures. In a prospective, randomized trial, we compared a transfusion algorithm using point-of-care coagulation testing with routine laboratory testing, and found the algorithm to be effective in reducing transfusion requirements.

Is epsilon-aminocaproic acid as effective as aprotinin in reducing bleeding with cardiac surgery?: a meta-analysis

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.

The efficacy and safety of aprotinin use in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The serine protease inhibitor aprotinin has received much attention in cardiac surgical practice as a pharmacologic intervention to improve the hemostatic derangement associated with cardiopulmonary bypass. This review highlights the major studies undertaken to investigate the efficacy and safety of aprotinin use in both primary and repeat coronary artery bypass graft surgical procedures.

METHODS

There have been at least 45 controlled studies in more than 7,000 patients in a variety of patient populations. These have ranged from primary coronary artery bypass graft and valve operations to complex reoperation procedures, including aortic arch reconstructions and thoracic organ transplantation. The recently completed International Multicenter Graft Patency Experience trial, the largest study to date, involved 870 patients at 13 international sites. The study examined the effects of aprotinin on graft patency, incidence of myocardial infarction, and blood loss in patients undergoing primary coronary artery bypass graft operations with cardiopulmonary bypass.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in approximately 5,000 patients undergoing primary coronary artery bypass graft or valve operations reported 33% to 66% reduction in blood loss with full-dose aprotinin therapy; 15 of the same studies reported significant reductions in transfusion requirements, ranging from 31% to 85%. The recently completed International Multicenter Graft Patency Experience study observed a significant reduction in thoracic-drainage volume of 43% (p < 0.0001) and a 49% (p < 0.001) reduction in the requirement for allogeneic blood transfusions. Aprotinin did not affect the occurrence of definite myocardial infarction (aprotinin, 2.9% versus placebo, 3.8%) or mortality (aprotinin, 1.4% versus placebo, 1.6%). There was no observed difference in the patency of internal mammary artery bypass grafts from all study sites in aprotinin- versus placebo-treated patients (aprotinin, 98.2% versus placebo, 98.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the risks and costs associated with excessive bleeding and transfusions and the limited supply of banked blood, aprotinin represents an important and safe approach to blood conservation.

Aprotinin versus lysine analogues: the debate continues

The decision to use any pharmacologic intervention inevitably rests on balancing the efficacy and safety of the intervention. The advent of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome epidemic greatly increased awareness of transfusion-related illnesses and focused attention on methods to prevent the need for blood and blood products. This has led, especially in the last decade, to increased use of drugs to help reduce perioperative bleeding. This chapter focuses on the lysine analogues and aprotinin as the serine protease inhibitor currently available in clinical practice. Both groups of compounds have recently shown promise in reducing surgical bleeding. However, the reader will notice that none of these agents are new; they have all been available for more than 30 years. What is new is their use in preventing bleeding. We therefore have considerable knowledge regarding the safety of these compounds. The first part of this review will compare the actions of these two types of agents on the processes related to thrombosis, hemostasis, and fibrinolysis. This is followed by a comparison of the efficacy of each intervention and any dose-response relationship. This section highlights the reported reduction in postoperative bleeding with both classes of agent. There is, however, no obvious or consistent reduction in the transfusion of blood and blood products in patients given lysine analogues. In contrast, there is a consistent reduction in the need for blood transfusions in patients given aprotinin therapy. The next major section will discuss the evidence to suggest that these drugs may, because of their known effects on the processes related to inflammation, hemostasis, and cellular repair, contribute to an improvement or worsening of outcome after cardiac operations. In particular, this section focuses on the antiinflammatory actions and modifications in vascular tone associated with aprotinin therapy. These effects may be related to improved outcome in patients by reducing the incidence of permanent neurologic deficit or stroke after heart operations, as well as inhibiting pulmonary vascular hyperreactivity and hypertension in susceptible individuals. Finally, this brief review discusses the safety issues that have been raised in regard to each of these classes of agents, specifically problems associated with abnormal renal function, hypersensitivity reactions, and thrombotic complications.

Drugs to minimize perioperative blood loss in cardiac surgery: meta-analyses using perioperative blood transfusion as the outcome. The International Study of Peri-operative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators

Concern about the side effects of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion has increased interest in methods of minimizing perioperative transfusion. We performed meta-analyses of randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of aprotinin, desmopressin, tranexamic acid, and epsilon-aminocaproic acid in cardiac surgery. All identified randomized trials in cardiac surgery were included in the meta-analyses. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received at least one perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion. Sixty studies were included in the meta-analyses. The largest number of patients (5808) was available for the meta-analysis of aprotinin, which significantly decreased exposure to allogeneic blood (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.39; P < 0.0001). The efficacy of aprotinin was not significantly different regardless of the type of surgery (primary or reoperation), aspirin use, or reported transfusion threshold. The use of aprotinin was associated with a significant decrease in the need for reoperation because of bleeding (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.73; P = 0.001). Desmopressin was not effective, with an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.64-1.50; P = 0.92). Tranexamic acid significantly decreased the proportion of patients transfused (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.76; P = 0.0009). Epsilon-aminocaproic acid did not have a statistically significant effect on the proportion of patients transfused (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04-1.12; P = 0.07). There were not enough patients to exclude a small but clinically important increase in myocardial infarction or other side effects for any of the medications. We conclude that aprotinin and tranexamic acid, but not desmopressin, decrease the number of patients exposed to perioperative allogeneic transfusions in association with cardiac surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Aprotinin, desmopressin, tranexamic acid, and epsilon-aminocaproic acid are used in cardiac surgery in an attempt to decrease the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion. This meta-analysis of all published randomized trials provides a good estimate of the efficacy of these medications and is useful in guiding clinical practice. We conclude that aprotinin and tranexamic acid, but not desmopressin, decrease the exposure of patients to allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively in relationship to cardiac surgery.

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patency

The long-term success of myocardial revascularization depends on continued patency of the bypass conduit or the artery treated by angioplasty. Patency after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is determined by surgical factors, including the type of conduit used and by pharmacotherapy in the postoperative period. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of factors that may contribute to improved or decreased coronary artery bypass graft patency.

Aprotinin Fifteen Years Later

Aprotinin, the broad-based bovine serine protease inhibitor, was first used as an antidote against the harmful proteases released through complement-induced neutrophil activation in the early 1980s. Since then, the safety and efficacy of aprotinin have been debated. Even now, fifteen years later, aprotinin's precise mechanism of action and clear indications for use have not been defined. This article discusses what aprotinin is, its role in the contact system of blood, how it improves hemostasis, the effect of temperature on it, its use in clinical practice, and which patients should receive it. The article concludes that aprotinin's hemostatic effects are useful in patients who are at increased risk from bleeding, but that it should not be considered a substitute for surgical skill. Early claims of absolute safety were premature. Risks between high- and low-dose regimens vary significantly, and more study is required. Alternatives to aprotinin such as the less expensive antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid are now available, but they also require additional study.

Aprotinin for primary coronary artery bypass grafting: a multicenter trial of three dose regimens

BACKGROUND

High-dose aprotinin reduces transfusion requirements in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, but the safety and effectiveness of smaller doses is unclear. Furthermore, patient selection criteria for optimal use of the drug are not well defined.

METHODS

Seven hundred and four first-time coronary artery bypass grafting patients were randomized to receive one of three doses of aprotinin (high, low, and pump-prime-only) or placebo. The patients were stratified as to risk of excessive bleeding.

RESULTS

All three aprotinin doses were highly effective in reducing bleeding and transfusion requirements. Consistent efficacy was not, however, demonstrated in the subgroup of patients at low risk for bleeding. There were no differences in mortality or the incidences of renal failure, strokes, or definite myocardial infarctions between the groups, although the pump-prime-only dose was associated with a small increase in definite, probable, or possible myocardial infarctions (p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose and pump-prime-only aprotinin regimens provide reductions in bleeding and transfusion requirements that are similar to those of high-dose regimens. Although safe, aprotinin is not routinely indicated for the first-time coronary artery bypass grafting patient who is at low risk for postoperative bleeding. The pump-prime-only dose is not currently recommended because of a possible association with more frequent myocardial infarctions.