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