Efficacy and safety of aprotinin in paediatric cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relicensing of aprotinin in Europe and Canada has stimulated discussions on its usefulness in paediatric cardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of aprotinin in paediatric cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review of all randomised and observational studies comparing aprotinin with tranexamic acid, epsilon aminocaproic acid, placebo or no drug in paediatric cardiac surgery. Meta-analyses were performed on efficacy and safety outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Embase were searched from January 2000 to March 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that enrolled children under 18 years undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies enrolling a total of 63 894 paediatric cardiac procedures were included. Aprotinin significantly reduced total blood loss [mean difference -4.70 ml kg-1, 95% confidence interval (CI), -7.88 to -1.53; P = 0.004], postoperative transfusion requirements and the incidence of surgical re-exploration for bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97; P = 0.03]. Aprotinin had no effects on 30-day mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.11; P = 0.73) and on other safety outcomes, except for the incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT), which was significantly increased in patients given aprotinin (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.54; P = 0.006). Findings from observational and randomised controlled trials did not largely differ. A sub-group analysis in neonates showed that aprotinin significantly reduced packed red blood cell transfusions and the incidence of postoperative surgical re-exploration for bleeding and/or tamponade. When compared with lysine analogues, aprotinin was more effective at reducing bleeding and transfusion without increasing the risk of side effects. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that aprotinin is effective and well tolerated in paediatric cardiac surgery. Given the large heterogeneity of the results and the risk of selection bias in observational studies, large randomised controlled trials are warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".