↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anti‐fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
263 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
423 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Anti‐fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001886.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Henry, Paul A Carless, Annette J Moxey, Dianne O'Connell, Barrie J Stokes, Dean A Fergusson, Katharine Ker

Abstract

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 The safety of the most popular agent, aprotinin, has been challenged, and it was withdrawn from world markets in May 2008 because of concerns that it increased the risk of cardiovascular complications and death. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 423 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 406 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 13%
Researcher 52 12%
Other 49 12%
Student > Bachelor 40 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 9%
Other 98 23%
Unknown 93 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 226 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 2%
Psychology 6 1%
Engineering 5 1%
Other 37 9%
Unknown 116 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,667,342
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,260
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,384
of 119,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 119,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.