MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2528520635 · doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5112-9

Cochrane in CORR ®: Topical Application of Tranexamic Acid for the Reduction of Bleeding (Review)

2016· letter· en· W2528520635 sur OpenAlexaff
Nathan Evaniew, Mohit Bhandari

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood transfusion and management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTranexamic acidMedicineRandomized controlled trialPulmonary embolismPerioperativeRelative riskFibrinolysisMyocardial infarctionSurgeryClinical trialOrthopedic surgeryAnesthesiaConfidence intervalInternal medicineBlood loss

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Importance of the Topic Many orthopaedic procedures are associated with substantial perioperative blood loss, which is associated with complications, increased length of stay, and even death [9]. Although blood transfusions generally are safe, they can cause transfusion reactions and, rarely, the transmission of infectious diseases. Tranexamic acid is an amino acid derivative that inhibits fibrinolysis [7]. More than 100 randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that intravenous tranexamic acid for surgical patients reduces the risk of receiving a blood transfusion by about one-third, but potential harms of systemic administration include pulmonary embolism, stroke, and myocardial infarction, each of which could be fatal [8]. Therefore, considerable research has recently focused on whether topical administration might offer similar efficacy with acceptable safety. In this meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials involving 2612 participants, topical tranexamic acid decreased bleeding by 29% (relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.72) and the need for blood transfusions by 45% (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.46-0.65) but the study could draw no firm conclusions about the risks for harmful thromboembolic events [7]. Although just 10 of the trials involved total hip or knee arthroplasty and two involved spine surgery (the remaining trials involved cardiac surgery, dental surgery, or other specialties), orthopaedic surgeons can be reassured that this meta-analysis is generalizable to their practice settings because the main findings were consistent across orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic trials. Upon Closer Inspection Allocation concealment refers to the extent to which those individuals responsible for enrolling patients were unaware of, and could not influence, the study arms to which patients were assigned. Allocation concealment is particularly important because trials with inadequate methods are prone to selection bias and systematically overestimating treatment effects [11]. Sealed opaque envelopes are often used to maintain concealment, but they are vulnerable to tampering and less secure than remote internet- or telephone-based systems [12]. The pooled reduction in risk for blood transfusion was slightly less impressive when trials with high-risk or unclear methods of allocation concealment were excluded (33% decreased risk of receiving a transfusion, [RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84]), but clinicians can be more confident that this result approximates the truth because it is at less risk of selection bias. Despite pooling data from 2612 participants, this meta-analysis was still underpowered by at least an order of magnitude (or more) to reliably inform about the risks for potential thromboembolic harms such as pulmonary embolism, stroke, and myocardial infarction—because most of these events are rare to begin with. For example, according to conventional power calculations, approximately 50,000 patients would be required to detect a 25% relative risk reduction for events that occur less than 1% of the time [4]. Therefore, readers should remain cautious when balancing the observed benefits of topical tranexamic acid against potential harms. Current best evidence comes from a nonrandomized retrospective database study of 872,416 patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty, which did not find any increased rates of thromboembolic harms or mortality [10]. Take-home Messages Several expert panel consensus statements have endorsed routine use of topical tranexamic acid for hip and knee arthroplasty, but there are currently no major guideline recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons [2, 6]. In order to determine the direction and strength of a recommendation, guidelines panels should integrate confidence in the pooled effect estimates, the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes among alternative management strategies, the values and preferences of typical patients, and the potential use of healthcare resources [1]. Given residual uncertainty about the risks for harm and potential variability in patients’ preferences about trading off these risks against bleeding and blood transfusions, strong general recommendations may not be warranted. However, current economic analyses suggest that topical tranexamic acid is likely to be cost-effective for procedures with higher risks for blood loss such as total hip and knee arthroplasty because it reduces costs related to blood transfusions and lengths of stay [5, 13]. The main findings of this meta-analysis have been confirmed in other meta-analyses that included additional trials for TKA, THA, and spine surgery, but several important questions remain unanswered [3, 14, 15]. For example, additional large observational studies are warranted to resolve uncertainty in the risks for thromboembolic harms, clarify whether certain dosing regimens might be superior to others, investigate use in specific patient populations such as those with contraindications to intravenous tranexamic acid, and investigate efficacy and cost-effectiveness in combination with other perioperative blood management strategies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,027
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,089

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,005
Bibliométrie0,0060,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,099
Tête enseignante GPT0,450
Écart entre enseignants0,350 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetBlood transfusion and managementTravaux en français237 207