• K Martin, R Gertler, M MacGuill, N P Mayr, A Hapfelmeier, J Hörer, M Vogt, P Tassani, and G Wiesner.
• Department of Anaesthesiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Klinik an der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany. martin@dhm.mhn.de
• Br J Anaesth. 2013 Apr 1;110(4):615-21.

BackgroundOnce aprotinin was no longer available for clinical use, ε-aminocaproic acid (EACA) and tranexamic acid became the only two options for antifibrinolytic therapy. We compared aprotinin and EACA with respect to their blood-sparing efficacy and other major clinical outcome criteria in infants undergoing cardiac surgery.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed data from a large consecutive cohort of infants (n=227) aged 31-365 days undergoing primary cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass encompassing the transition from aprotinin to EACA (aprotinin n=88, EACA n=139); all other aspects including the medical team and departmental protocols remained unchanged. The primary outcome was postoperative blood loss measured as chest tube output (CTO). Secondary outcome parameters were transfusion requirements, reoperation due to bleeding, renal, vascular, and neurological complications, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsCTO was significantly higher in the EACA patients {aprotinin 18 (13-27) ml kg(-1) 24 h(-1), EACA 23 (15-37) ml kg(-1) 24 h(-1) [mean (inter-quartile range)], P=0.001}, but transfusion requirements and donor exposures were not significantly different. A sensitivity analysis strengthened our finding that the increased blood loss in the EACA group was attributable to lower efficacy of EACA. There were no significant differences in the other clinical outcome measures.ConclusionsCTO was lower in aprotinin-treated patients. Nonetheless, EACA remains a suitable substitute without measurable differences in other clinical outcome criteria.

25 keywords...

hide…