The Risks of Aprotinin and Tranexamic Acid in Cardiac Surgery: A One-Year Follow-Up of 1188 Consecutive Patients

被引:131
作者
Martin, Klaus [1 ]
Wiesner, Gunther
Breuer, Tamas [2 ]
Lange, Ruediger [3 ]
Tassani, Peter
机构
[1] Clin Tech Univ Munich, Inst Anesthesiol, German Heart Ctr Munich, D-80636 Munich, Germany
[2] Semmelweis Univ, Dept Cardiol, H-1085 Budapest, Hungary
[3] German Heart Ctr Munich, Dept Cardiovasc Surg, Munich, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1213/ane.0b013e318184bc20
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate postoperative complications and mortality after administration of aprotinin compared to tranexamic acid in all unselected, consecutive cohort. METHODS: Perioperative data from consecutive cardiac surgery patients were prospectively collected between September 2005 and June 2006 in a university-affiliated clinic (n = 1188). During the first 5 mo, 596 patients received aprotinin (Group A); in the next 5 mo, 592 patients were treated with tranexamic acid (Group T). Except for anti fibrinolytic therapy, the anesthetic and surgical protocols remained unchanged. RESULTS: The pre- and intraoperative variables were comparable between the treatment groups. Postoperatively, a significantly higher incidence of seizures was found in Group T (4.6% vs 1.2%, P < 0.001). This difference was also significant in the primary valve surgery and the high risk surgery subgroups (7.9% vs 1.2%, P = 0.003; 7.3% vs 2.4%, P = 0.035, respectively). Persistent atrial fibrillation (7.9% vs 2.3%, P = 0.020) and renal failure (9.7% vs 1.7%, P = 0.002) were also more common in Group T, in the primary valve surgery subgroup. On the contrary, among primary coronary artery bypass surgery patients, there were more acute myocardial infarctions and renal dysfunction in Group A (5.8% vs 2.0%, P = 0.027; 22.5% vs 15.2%, P = 0.036, respectively). The 1-yr mortality was significantly higher after aprotinin treatment in the high risk surgery group (17.7% vs 9.8%, P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Both antifibrinolytic drugs bear the risk of adverse outcome depending on the type of cardiac surgery. Administration of aprotinin should be avoided ill coronary artery bypass graft and high risk patients, whereas administration of tranexamic acid is not recommended in valve surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:1783 / 1790
页数:8
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [21] ROYSTON D, 1987, LANCET, V2, P1289
  • [22] SAMAMA CM, 1994, THROMB HAEMOSTASIS, V71, P663
  • [23] Aprotinin during coronary-artery bypass grafting and risk of death
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    Seeger, John D.
    Landon, Joan
    Walker, Alexander M.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2008, 358 (08) : 771 - 783
  • [24] The effect of aprotinin on outcome after coronary-artery bypass grafting.
    Shaw, Andrew D.
    Stafford-Smith, Mark
    White, William D.
    Phillips-Bute, Barbara
    Swaminathan, Madhav
    Milano, Carmelo
    Welsby, Ian J.
    Aronson, Solomon
    Mathew, Joseph P.
    Peterson, Eric D.
    Newman, Mark F.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2008, 358 (08) : 784 - 793
  • [25] Medical progress - Assessing kidney function - Measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate
    Stevens, Lesley A.
    Coresh, Josef
    Greene, Tom
    Levey, Andrew S.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2006, 354 (23) : 2473 - 2483
  • [26] TSEMENTZIS SA, 1992, NEUROCHIRURGIA, V35, P74
  • [27] Aprotinin impairs coronary endothelial function and down-regulates endothelial NOS in rat coronary microvascular endothelial cells
    Ülker, S
    McKeown, PP
    Bayraktutan, U
    [J]. CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH, 2002, 55 (04) : 830 - 837
  • [28] Cellular distribution of exogenous aprotinin in the rat kidney
    Vio, CP
    Oestreicher, E
    Olavarria, V
    Velarde, V
    Mayfield, RK
    Jaffa, AA
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, 1998, 379 (10) : 1271 - 1277
  • [29] CEREBRAL COMPLICATION OF ANTI-FIBRINOLYTIC THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF RUPTURED INTRA-CRANICAL ANEURYSM - ANIMAL-EXPERIMENT AND A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
    YAMAURA, A
    NAKAMURA, T
    MAKINO, H
    HAGIHARA, Y
    [J]. EUROPEAN NEUROLOGY, 1980, 19 (02) : 77 - 84