Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
REVIEW ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed9307    
    Printed373    
    Emailed28    
    PDF Downloaded1168    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 13    

Recommend this journal

Antifibrinolytics in cardiac surgery


Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, London, N6A 5A5, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Achal Dhir
Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, London, N6A 5A5, Ontario
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.109749

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2013  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 117-125

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (451 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Cardiac surgery exerts a significant strain on the blood bank services and is a model example in which a multi-modal blood-conservation strategy is recommended. Significant bleeding during cardiac surgery, enough to cause re-exploration and/or blood transfusion, increases morbidity and mortality. Hyper-fibrinolysis is one of the important contributors to increased bleeding. This knowledge has led to the use of anti-fibrinolytic agents especially in procedures performed under cardiopulmonary bypass. Nothing has been more controversial in recent times than the aprotinin controversy. Since the withdrawal of aprotinin from the world market, the choice of antifibrinolytic agents has been limited to lysine analogues either tranexamic acid (TA) or epsilon amino caproic acid (EACA). While proponents of aprotinin still argue against its non-availability. Health Canada has approved its use, albeit under very strict regulations. Antifibrinolytic agents are not without side effects and act like double-edged swords, the stronger the anti-fibrinolytic activity, the more serious the side effects. Aprotinin is the strongest in reducing blood loss, blood transfusion, and possibly, return to the operating room after cardiac surgery. EACA is the least effective, while TA is somewhere in between. Additionally, aprotinin has been implicated in increased mortality and maximum side effects. TA has been shown to increase seizure activity, whereas, EACA seems to have the least side effects. Apparently, these agents do not differentiate between pathological and physiological fibrinolysis and prevent all forms of fibrinolysis leading to possible thrombotic side effects. It would seem prudent to select the right agent knowing its risk-benefit profile for a given patient, under the given circumstances.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 REVIEW ARTICLE
 




Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, London, N6A 5A5, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Achal Dhir
Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, 339 Windermere Road, London, N6A 5A5, Ontario
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.109749

Rights and Permissions

Cardiac surgery exerts a significant strain on the blood bank services and is a model example in which a multi-modal blood-conservation strategy is recommended. Significant bleeding during cardiac surgery, enough to cause re-exploration and/or blood transfusion, increases morbidity and mortality. Hyper-fibrinolysis is one of the important contributors to increased bleeding. This knowledge has led to the use of anti-fibrinolytic agents especially in procedures performed under cardiopulmonary bypass. Nothing has been more controversial in recent times than the aprotinin controversy. Since the withdrawal of aprotinin from the world market, the choice of antifibrinolytic agents has been limited to lysine analogues either tranexamic acid (TA) or epsilon amino caproic acid (EACA). While proponents of aprotinin still argue against its non-availability. Health Canada has approved its use, albeit under very strict regulations. Antifibrinolytic agents are not without side effects and act like double-edged swords, the stronger the anti-fibrinolytic activity, the more serious the side effects. Aprotinin is the strongest in reducing blood loss, blood transfusion, and possibly, return to the operating room after cardiac surgery. EACA is the least effective, while TA is somewhere in between. Additionally, aprotinin has been implicated in increased mortality and maximum side effects. TA has been shown to increase seizure activity, whereas, EACA seems to have the least side effects. Apparently, these agents do not differentiate between pathological and physiological fibrinolysis and prevent all forms of fibrinolysis leading to possible thrombotic side effects. It would seem prudent to select the right agent knowing its risk-benefit profile for a given patient, under the given circumstances.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article