Topical Use of Tranexamic Acid in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the evidence for the efficacy and safety of intrapericardial tranexamic acid (TXA) in cardiac surgery. Methods We searched MEDLINE from 2000 to 2017 for randomized controlled trials that compared intrapericardial TXA to placebo. We performed a meta-analysis for the eligible trials that focused on chest tube drainage measured during the first 24 hours after surgery as a primary outcome. We also examined the secondary outcome measures of these trials such as the incidence of transfusion requirements following surgery and the evidence for any increase in complication rates. Results A total of seven randomized controlled trials (six on-pump and one off-pump) comparing topical application of TXA to placebo in 692 patients were eligible for the blood loss outcome data. These trials randomized 372 patients to receive TXA and 320 patients as controls. The use of intrapericardial TXA was associated with a considerable reduction in 24-hour blood loss in all seven studies and a weighted mean difference of −343.56 mL (95% confidence interval: −316.41, −370.72) significantly differed from zero (p = 0.005) with a heterogeneity of I 2 = 0%. The incidence of packed RBC transfusion in TXA patients was significantly lower in one study and was not significant but with trend in favor of TXA in five out of the six studies in which it was reported. In one trial, TXA was not detected in any patient and in another the studied groups were similar in postoperative complications, such as graft patency, myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, atrial fibrillation, seizures, and infections. Conclusions Findings from this meta-analysis suggest that intrapericardial use of TXA in patients undergoing cardiac surgery can decrease postoperative bleeding without increasing the risk of postoperative seizures. Future large randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm these promising findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| 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".