Effectiveness of Inhalational Tranexamic Acid in Patients with Nonmassive Hemoptysis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundHemoptysis, the expectoration of blood from the lower respiratory tract, varies in severity and necessitates effective management to mitigate morbidity. Traditional treatments include bronchial artery embolization and pharmacological approaches. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent known for its efficacy in reducing bleeding during surgery and trauma, is being explored for its efficacy in treating Hemoptysis via both intravenous and inhalational routes. Inhalational administration has garnered interest because of its targeted action and minimal systemic effects. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of inhalational TXA in nonmassive hemoptysis.MethodsA systematic literature search encompassing PubMed Central, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and ProQuest was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the effectiveness of inhalational tranexamic acid for nonmassive hemoptysis were included. Comparative intervention effect estimates from meta-analyses are reported as pooled odds ratios and pooled mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI).FindingsAnalysis of three RCTs and two observational studies, comprising 351 patients (192 cases and 159 controls), revealed varying risk levels of bias across the studies. Nebulized tranexamic acid was 3.85 times more likely to achieve hemoptysis cessation than alternative treatments across all RCTs. Moreover, patients receiving nebulized tranexamic acid required fewer (43%) pulmonary interventional procedures than those receiving other treatments. Despite showing a trend towards reducing posttherapy bleeding (20 ml less), conclusive results were hindered by wide CI, necessitating further investigation.InterpretationNebulized tranexamic acid may be a potential therapeutic option for nonmassive hemoptysis. While our analysis suggests its potential benefits in halting bleeding and reducing the need for invasive procedures, the quality of the available evidence is limited due to the risk of bias and study limitations. This underscores the necessity for additional randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and rigorous study designs to strengthen evidence and optimize clinical utility.Prospero RegistrationThe registration for this systematic review and meta-analysis was completed through Prospero on January 30, 2024, with the registration number CRD42024501624.