Full-Dose Aprotinin Use in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: An Analysis of Perioperative Pharmacotherapy and Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief BACKGROUND: Inappropriate activation of hemostasis and inflammation may contribute to postoperative morbidity and mortality. The serine protease inhibitor, aprotinin, has been shown to prevent tissue and organ injury in laboratory and animal studies. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the relationship of aprotinin therapy with organ dysfunction in humans undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). METHODS: Data from prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of full-dose aprotinin (2 million KIU load, 2 million KIU pump prime, and 0.5 million KIU/h continuous infusion) to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing CABG (placebo, n = 861; aprotinin, n = 862) were examined retrospectively. Primary end-points were death, adverse cerebrovascular outcome, myocardial infarction (MI), and pharmacological interventions (inotropic drugs, vasopressors, and antiarrhythmics). RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that relative to placebo, full-dose aprotinin therapy was associated with significant effects on the incidence of adverse cerebrovascular outcome (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19–0.93; P = 0.03) and use of inotropic drugs (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.97; P = 0.02), vasopressors (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.90; P < 0.01), and antiarrhythmics (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.96; P = 0.02), but not death (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.54–1.85; P = 1.0) or MI (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64–1.31; P = 0.6). Multivariate analysis confirmed results of univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis of data collected from prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in CABG shows that full-dose aprotinin use was associated with a lower risk of adverse cerebrovascular outcomes and a reduced need for use of vasoactive drugs; the risk of death and perioperative MI was not affected by aprotinin therapy. IMPLICATIONS: We sought to determine if large-dose aprotinin therapy had any benefit to patients having myocardial revascularization other than reduction in transfusion. Analysis of a database of 1723 patients participating in randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled studies showed that, in patients when given this therapy, stroke and need for therapy to maintain cardiovascular stability were significantly less.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".