Antifibrinolytic therapy: Evidence, bias, confounding (and politics!)

2Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Cardiac surgery can be complicated by postoperative bleeding and a need for blood transfusion and surgical re-exploration. Anti-fibrinolytic drugs such as aprotinin and tranexamic acid may reduce bleeding risks but could possibly increase thrombotic complications. Aprotinin, in particular, has recently been implicated in at least two large observational studies, but this could be because it is more widely used in high-risk cardiac surgical patients. Observational studies are prone to several important sources of bias, in particular, confounding by indication (high-risk patients are more likely to receive aprotinin and more likely to have postoperative complications, irrespective of their exposure to aprotinin). Although multivariate adjustment and propensity score-matching can adjust for confounding, there is no certainty that it removes all such bias. For all anti-fibrinolytic drugs, it remains unclear as to whether the beneficial effect on reduced bleeding outweighs a possible increased risk of thrombotic complications. Debate will continue until we have the results of definitive large randomized trials powered to detect a clinically important effect on outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Myles, P. (2007). Antifibrinolytic therapy: Evidence, bias, confounding (and politics!). In Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology (Vol. 39, pp. 308–310). American Society of Extra-Corporeal Technology. https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/200739308

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free