Aprotinin: Pharmacological Benefits and Safety Concerns


Meta-analysis

Year of publication

Number of patients

Number of studies

OR (CI 95 %)

OR (CI 95 %)

OR (CI 95 %)





Aprotinin versus tranexamic acid

Aprotinin versus aminocaproic acid

Aprotinin versus placebo

Howell [12]abc

2013

15,528

88

0.73 (0.45–1.12)

0.88 (0.50–2.13)

1.11 (0.75-1.53)

Hutton [14]ac

2012

14,773

82

0.64 (0.41–0.99)

0.79 (0.47–1.55)

0.99 (0.72–1.36)

Hutton [14]abc

2012

41,350

93

0.71 (0.50–0.98)

0.60 (0.43–0.87)

0.91 (0.71–1.16)

Henry [13]ad

2011

17,136

85

1.35 (0.94–1.93)

1.51 (0.99–2.30)

0.81 (0.63–1.06)


OR odds ratio; CI confidence interval. a BART study included in meta-analysis; b observational studies included in meta-analysis, c OR < 1 favors second-listed treatment; d OR > 1 favors second-listed treatment




Table 16.2
Meta-analyses of aprotinin-related studies—mortality and number of patients







































































Meta-analysis

Number of patients

Number of studies

Number of patients/deaths (%)

RR 95 % CI




Aprotinin

TXA

EACA

Control


Howell [12]abc

15,528

88

6,284/177 (2.81 %)

3,048/62 (2.03 %)

1,309/44 (3.36 %)

4,887/110 (2.25 %)

NS

Henry [13]d (cochrane):








A versus control

8,876

63

4,889/116 (2.37 %)



3,987/104 (2.6 %)

0.81 (0.63 to 1.06)

TXA versus Control

2,917

30


1,478/15 (1.01 %)


1,439/28 (1.94 %)

0.60 (0.33–1.10)

EACA versus Control

922

8



504/10 (1.98 %)

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Apr 6, 2017 | Posted by in CRITICAL CARE | Comments Off on Aprotinin: Pharmacological Benefits and Safety Concerns

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access