Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Online ISSN 1827-191X
Kertai M. D. 1,2, Varga K. S. 1, Royston D. 2, London M. J. 3, Szabolcs Z. 1, Grebenik C. R. 1,Acsady G. 1, Gal J. 1,4
1 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
2 Department of Anesthesia Harefield Hospital, London, UK
3 Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
4 Nuffield Department of Anesthetics John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
Aim. Recently, the clinical significance of aprotinin-induced renal dysfunction and other end-organ complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery has engendered substantial controversy. Therefore, we assessed the effect of aprotinin on end-organ complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Methods. Data of 674 patients (mean age 65.4±11.0 years, 457 males) undergoing cardiac surgery between January 1 and December 31, 2005 at Semmelweis University were used for the analyses. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative clinical and surgical variables were recorded. Patients administered aprotinin received the drug either as a low-dose regimen, a loading dose of 1 million kallikrein-inhibitor units (KIU), 1 million KIU in pump, and 1 million KIU post pump (or continuous infusion of 0.25 million KIU per hour); or a high-dose regimen, a loading dose of 2 million KIU, 2 million KIU in pump, and 2 million KIU post pump (or continuous infusion of 0.5 million KIU per hour). The outcomes were renal complications defined as a 25% reduction in postoperative calculated creatinine clearance compared to the preoperative baseline or renal failure requiring dialysis; and the composite of renal, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications and all-cause mortality.
Results. Patients underwent coronary artery bypass surgery (63%), valvular (27%) or a combination (5%) and surgery on the ascending aorta (5%). There were 550 patients (81.6%) who received aprotinin treatment. In multivariate regression analyses when the relation between high or low dose aprotinin compared to no aprotinin was evaluated, the likelihood of renal complications [high dose: odds ratio (OR)=1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6-3.0, P=0.4; low dose: OR=1.2, 95%CI, 0.7-2.3, p=0.5], and the composite outcome variable (high dose: OR=1.6, 95%CI, 0.8-3.4, P=0.2; low dose: OR=1.3, 95%CI, 0.7-2.3, P=0.4) were not significantly increased.
Conclusion. Our analysis suggests that aprotinin use in either a high or low dose regimen was not associated with an increase in adverse end-organ complications.