Risk of bleeding in surgical patients treated with topical bovine thrombin sealants: a review of the literature

A hospital cost analysis of a fibrin sealant patch in soft tissue and hepatic surgical bleeding

Background

Despite hemostat use, uncontrolled surgical bleeding is prevalent. Drawbacks of current hemostats include limitations with efficacy on first attempt and suboptimal ease-of-use. Evarrest^® is a novel fibrin sealant patch that has demonstrated high hemostatic efficacy compared with standard of care across bleeding severities. The objective of this study was to conduct a hospital cost analysis of the fibrin sealant patch versus standard of care in soft tissue and hepatic surgical bleeding.

Methods

The analysis quantified the 30-day costs of each comparator from a hospital perspective. Published US unit costs were applied to resource use (ie, initial treatment, retreatment, operating time, hospitalization, transfusion, and ventilator) reported in four trials. A “surgical” analysis included resources clinically related to the hemostatic benefit of the fibrin sealant patch, whereas a “hospital” analysis included all resources reported in the trials. An exploratory subgroup analysis focused solely on coagulopathic patients defined by abnormal blood test results.

Results

The surgical analysis predicted cost savings of $54 per patient with the fibrin sealant patch compared with standard of care (net cost impact: −$54 per patient; sensitivity range: −$1,320 to $1,213). The hospital analysis predicted further cost savings with the fibrin sealant patch (net cost impact of −$2,846 per patient; sensitivity range: −$1,483 to −$5,575). Subgroup analyses suggest that the fibrin sealant patch may provide dramatic cost savings in the coagulopathic subgroup of $3,233 (surgical) and $9,287 (hospital) per patient. Results were most sensitive to operating time and product units.

Conclusion

In soft tissue and hepatic problematic surgical bleeding, the fibrin sealant patch may result in important hospital cost savings.

Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

VTE is a common cause of preventable death in surgical patients.

METHODS

We developed recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients by using systematic methods as described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

We describe several alternatives for stratifying the risk of VTE in general and abdominal-pelvic surgical patients. When the risk for VTE is very low (< 0.5%), we recommend that no specific pharmacologic (Grade 1B) or mechanical (Grade 2C) prophylaxis be used other than early ambulation. For patients at low risk for VTE (∼1.5%), we suggest mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), over no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at moderate risk for VTE (∼3%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (Grade 2B), low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B), or mechanical prophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C) over no prophylaxis. For patients at high risk for VTE (∼6%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH (Grade 1B) or low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B) over no prophylaxis. In these patients, we suggest adding mechanical prophylaxis with elastic stockings or IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at high risk for VTE undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer, we recommend extended-duration, postoperative, pharmacologic prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWH over limited-duration prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For patients at moderate to high risk for VTE who are at high risk for major bleeding complications or those in whom the consequences of bleeding are believed to be particularly severe, we suggest use of mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with IPC, over no prophylaxis until the risk of bleeding diminishes and pharmacologic prophylaxis may be initiated (Grade 2C). For patients in all risk groups, we suggest that an inferior vena cava filter not be used for primary VTE prevention (Grade 2C) and that surveillance with venous compression ultrasonography should not be performed (Grade 2C). We developed similar recommendations for other nonorthopedic surgical populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients will consider the risks of VTE and bleeding complications as well as the values and preferences of individual patients.

A Multicenter Pilot Study to Estimate the Prevalence of Bovine and Human Coagulation Antibodies in the General US Population

Antibodies to bovine and human coagulation proteins have been reported to develop in some patients receiving perioperative exposure to topical bovine thrombin. To estimate the prevalence of antihuman and antibovine thrombin and factor V antibodies in the general population, this multicenter pilot study in 278 participants was undertaken. Of the participants, 88% had no detectable antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Cumulatively 22 (7.9%) of 278 of the participants were positive for at least 1 of the antibovine antibodies and only 11 (4%) of 278 were positive for human thrombin antibodies. No participants had antihuman factor V/Va antibodies. Antibodies were found in 21% of participants with no history of surgery, transfusion, or pregnancy. In participants without a surgical history, thus a low likelihood of bovine thrombin exposure, 7.9% (9 of 114) had antibovine antibodies and 3.5% (4 of 114) had human antithrombin antibodies, suggesting that antibodies may arise from contact with antigenic sources other than bovine-derived thrombin.

The unresolved safety concerns of bovine thrombin

A recent review has suggested that bovine thrombin is not associated with an increased risk of bleeding in surgical populations. In spite of extremely limited evidence available, many valuable resources (e.g. safety surveillance and post-marketing programs, case reports) were excluded in reaching this conclusion. While waiting for the adequately powered, controlled clinical trials to address the effects of bovine thrombin on bleeding and thrombotic events, the potential risk cannot be simply ignored. Rather, continued vigilance in the post-surgical setting for bleeding events that may be associated with the development of acquired coagulation factor inhibitors following bovine thrombin administration is warranted.