Cost-benefit and efficacy of aprotinin compared with ε-aminocaproic acid in patients having repeated cardiac operations: A randomized, blinded clinical trial

Abstract

Background: Aprotinin and ε-aminocaproic acid are routinely used to reduce bleeding during cardiac surgery. The marked difference in average wholesale cost between these two drug therapies (aprotinin, $1,080 vs. ε- aminocaproic acid, $11) has generated significant controversy regarding their reactive efficacies and costs. Methods: In a multicenter, randomized, prospective, blinded trial, patients having repeated cardiac surgery received either a high-dose regimen of aprotinin (total dose, 6 x 106 kallikrein inactivator units) or ε-aminocaproic acid (total dose, 270 mg/kg). Results: Two hundred four patients were studied. Overall (data are median [25th-75th percentiles]), aprotinin-treated patients had less postoperative thoracic drainage (511 ml [383-805 ml] vs. 655 ml [464-1,045 ml]; P = 0.016) and received fewer platelet transfusions (0 [range, 0-1] vs. 1 [range, 0-2]; P = 0.036). The surgical field was more likely to be considered free of bleeding in aprotinin-treated patients (44% vs. 26%, P = 0.012). No differences, however, were seen in allogeneic erythrocyte transfusions or in the time required for chest closure. Overall, direct and indirect bleeding-related costs were greater in aprotinin- than in ε-aminocaproic acid-treated patients ($1,813 [$1,476-2,605] vs. $1,088 [range, $511-2,057]; P = 0.0001). This difference in cost per case varied in magnitude among sites but not in direction. Conclusions: Aprotinin was more effective than ε-aminocaproic acid at decreasing bleeding and platelet transfusions, ε-aminocaproic acid, however, was the more cost-effective therapy over a broad range of estimates for bleeding-related costs in patients undergoing repeated cardiac surgery. A cost-benefit analysis using the lower cost of half-dose aprotinin ($540) still resulted in a significant cost advantage using ε-aminocaproic therapy (P = 0.022).