Three consecutive cases of fatal intraoperative intracardiac thrombosis associated with the initiation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the presence of aprotinin

Use of Aprotinin versus Tranexamic Acid in Cardiac Surgery Patients with High-Risk for Excessive Bleeding (APACHE) trial: a multicentre retrospective comparative non-randomized historical study

OBJECTIVES

Following the reintroduction of aprotinin into the European market, the French Society of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Anaesthesiologists recommended its prophylactic use at half-dose for high-risk cardiac surgery patients. We examined whether the use of aprotinin instead of tranexamic acid could significantly reduce severe perioperative bleeding.

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective, historical study included cardiac surgery patients treated with aprotinin or tranexamic acid between December 2017 and September 2020. The primary efficacy end point was the severe or massive perioperative bleeding (class 3-4 of the universal definition of perioperative bleeding). The safety secondary end points included the occurrence of thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Among the 693 patients included in the study, 347 received aprotinin and 346 took tranexamic acid. The percentage of patients with severe or massive bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (42.1% vs 43.6%, Adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-1.23, P = 0.44), as was the perioperative need for blood products (81.0% vs 83.2%, ORadj = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-1.17, P = 0.20). However, the median (Interquartile range) 12 h postoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the aprotinin group (383 ml [241-625] vs 450 ml [290-730], P < 0.01). Compared to tranexamic acid, the intraoperative use of aprotinin was associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events (adjusted Hazard ratio 2.30 [95% Cl: 1.06-5.30]; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the modest reduction in blood loss at the expense of a significant increase in thromboembolic adverse events, aprotinin use in high-risk cardiac surgery patients should be based on a carefully considered benefit-risk assessment.

Thrombotic risk in central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation post cardiac surgery

Introduction:

Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock is an accepted indication for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The true incidence and risk factors for the development of thrombosis in this setting remain unclear.

Methods:

Patients supported with central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to ventricular dysfunction precluding weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass were retrospectively identified. Electronic records from a single institution spanning a 4-year period from January 2015 to December 2018 were interrogated to assess the incidence of thrombosis. The relationship to exposures including intracardiac stasis and procoagulant usage was explored.

Results:

Twenty-four patients met the inclusion criteria and six suffered major intracardiac thrombosis. All cases of thrombosis occurred early, and none survived to hospital discharge. The lack of left ventricular ejection conferred a 46% risk of developing thrombosis compared to 0% if ejection was maintained (p = 0.0093). Aprotinin use was also associated with thrombus formation (p = 0.035). There were no significant differences between numbers of patients receiving other procoagulants when grouped by thrombosis versus no thrombosis.

Conclusion:

Stasis is the predominant risk factor for intracardiac thrombosis. This occurs rapidly and the outcome is poor. As a result, we suggest early left ventricular decompression. Conventional management of post-bypass coagulopathy seems safe if the aortic valve is opening.