• Abdullah K Malik, Aimen O Amer, Samuel J Tingle, Emily R Thompson, Steven A White, Derek M Manas, and Colin Wilson.
• Institute of Transplantation, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 8; 8 (8): CD010872CD010872.

BackgroundLiver resection is the optimal treatment for selected benign and malignant liver tumours, but it can be associated with significant blood loss. Numerous anaesthetic and surgical techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss and improve perioperative outcomes. One such technique is the application of topical fibrin-based haemostatic agents (FBHAs) to the resection surface. There is no standard practice for FBHA use, and a variety of commercial agents and devices are available, as well as non-FBHAs (e.g. collagen-based agents). The literature is inconclusive on the effectiveness of these methods and on the clinical benefits of their routine use.ObjectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin-based haemostatic agents in reducing intraoperative blood loss in adults undergoing liver resection.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science up to 20 January 2023. We also searched online trial registries, checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials.Selection CriteriaWe considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials evaluating FBHAs versus no topical intervention or non-FBHAs, irrespective of publication type, publication status, language of publication, and outcomes reported. Eligible participants could have any liver pathology and be undergoing major or minor liver resections through open or laparoscopic surgery.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo review authors independently screened the results of the literature search and used data extraction forms to collate the results. We expressed dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MDs), each with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model for the main analyses. Our primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, serious adverse events, haemostatic efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were efficacy as sealant, adverse events considered non-serious, operating time, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE and presented results in two summary of findings tables.Main ResultsWe included 22 trials (2945 participants) evaluating FBHAs versus no intervention or non-FBHAs; 19 trials with 2642 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Twelve trials reported commercial funding, one trial reported no financial support, and nine trials provided no information on funding. Below we present the most clinically relevant outcome results, also displayed in our summary of findings table. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus no intervention Six trials (1001 participants) compared FBHAs with no intervention. One trial was at low risk of bias in all five domains, and all other trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Two trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.44; 4 trials, 782 participants), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; 4 trials, 782 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; 5 trials, 864 participants), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 14.61; 2 trials, 612 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; 4 trials, 782 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. Fibrin-based haemostatic agents versus non-fibrin-based haemostatic agents Sixteen trials (1944 participants) compared FBHAs with non-FBHAs. All trials had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. Twelve trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.72; 11 trials, 1436 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.25; 7 trials, 599 participants), reoperation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 3 trials, 358 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21; 9 trials, 1115 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 9 trials, 1176 participants; low-certainty evidence).Authors' ConclusionsThe evidence for the outcomes in both comparisons (FBHAs versus no intervention and FBHAs versus non-FBHAs) was of very low certainty (or low certainty in one instance) and cannot justify the routine use of FBHAs to reduce blood loss in adult liver resection. While the meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of reoperation with FBHAs compared with non-FBHAs, the analysis was confounded by the small number of trials reporting the event and the risk of bias in all these trials. Future trials should focus on the use of FBHAs in people undergoing liver resection who are at particularly high risk of bleeding. Investigators should evaluate clinically meaningful and patient-important outcomes and follow the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

11 keywords...

hide…