Efficacy and safety of aprotinin in aortocoronary bypass and valve replacement operations: a placebo-controlled randomized double-blind study

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.

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.

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.

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.

Role of aprotinin in the management of patients during and after cardiac surgery

Management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery has evolved in recent years as more is understood about the physiological changes and responses that occur during and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). In particular, our understanding of the mechanisms involved in haemostasis and in the inflammatory response to bypass surgery, has allowed significant refinements in patient management. Improvements in the pharmacological conservation of blood loss have been striking, particularly with the development of the serine protease inhibitor, aprotinin (Trasylol, Bayer). Aprotinin represents a significant improvement, especially for patients at high risk, since it reduces the need for allogeneic and (sometimes scarce) blood products. However, in view of its cost, making an appropriate selection of patients most at risk of serious blood loss is a major consideration in the use of aprotinin. While its mechanisms of action are not well understood, the use of aprotinin also appears to reduce inflammatory response to CPB.

Pharmacological strategies to decrease excessive blood loss in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of clinically relevant endpoints

BACKGROUND

Excessive bleeding may complicate cardiac surgery, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Pharmacological strategies to decrease perioperative bleeding have been investigated in a large number of controlled trials, most of which have shown a decrease in blood loss. However, most studies lacked sufficient power to detect a beneficial effect on clinically more relevant outcomes. We did a meta-analysis of all randomised, controlled trials of the three most frequently used pharmacological strategies to decrease perioperative blood loss (aprotinin, lysine analogues [aminocaproic acid and tranexamic acid], and desmopressin).

METHODS

Studies were included if they reported at least one clinically relevant outcome (mortality, rethoracotomy, proportion of patients receiving a transfusion, or perioperative myocardial infarction) in addition to perioperative blood loss. In addition, a separate meta-analysis was done for studies concerning complicated cardiac surgery.

FINDINGS

We identified 72 trials (8409 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Treatment with aprotinin decreased mortality almost two-fold (odds ratio 0.55 [95% CI 0.34-0.90]) compared with placebo. Treatment with aprotinin and with lysine analogues decreased the frequency of surgical re-exploration (0.37 [0.25-0.55], and 0.44 [0.22-0.90], respectively). These two treatments also significantly decreased the proportion of patients receiving any allogeneic blood transfusion. By contrast, the use of desmopressin resulted in a small decrease in perioperative blood loss, but was not associated with a beneficial effect on other clinical outcomes. Aprotinin and lysine analogues did not increase the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction; however, desmopressin was associated with a 2.4-fold increase in the risk of this complication. Studies in patients undergoing complicated cardiac surgery showed similar results.

INTERPRETATION

Pharmacological strategies that decrease perioperative blood loss in cardiac surgery, in particular aprotinin and lysine analogues, also decrease mortality, the need for rethoracotomy, and the proportion of patients receiving a blood transfusion.

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.

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.