Fibrin-based haemostatic agents for reducing blood loss in adult liver resection

医学 梅德林 失血 荟萃分析 临床试验 随机对照试验 围手术期 外科 纤维蛋白 肝切除术 切除术 内科学 政治学 法学 免疫学
作者
Abdullah Malik,Aimen Amer,Samuel J Tingle,Emily R. Thompson,Steven White,Derek Manas,Colin Wilson
出处
期刊:The Cochrane library [Elsevier]
卷期号:2023 (8) 被引量:2
标识
DOI:10.1002/14651858.cd010872.pub2
摘要

Background Liver resection is the optimal treatment for selected benign and malignant liver tumours, but it can be associated with significant blood loss. Numerous anaesthetic and surgical techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss and improve perioperative outcomes. One such technique is the application of topical fibrin‐based haemostatic agents (FBHAs) to the resection surface. There is no standard practice for FBHA use, and a variety of commercial agents and devices are available, as well as non‐FBHAs (e.g. collagen‐based agents). The literature is inconclusive on the effectiveness of these methods and on the clinical benefits of their routine use. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin‐based haemostatic agents in reducing intraoperative blood loss in adults undergoing liver resection. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index‐Science up to 20 January 2023. We also searched online trial registries, checked the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials. Selection criteria We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials evaluating FBHAs versus no topical intervention or non‐FBHAs, irrespective of publication type, publication status, language of publication, and outcomes reported. Eligible participants could have any liver pathology and be undergoing major or minor liver resections through open or laparoscopic surgery. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search and used data extraction forms to collate the results. We expressed dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MDs), each with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random‐effects model for the main analyses. Our primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, serious adverse events, haemostatic efficacy, and health‐related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were efficacy as sealant, adverse events considered non‐serious, operating time, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE and presented results in two summary of findings tables. Main results We included 22 trials (2945 participants) evaluating FBHAs versus no intervention or non‐FBHAs; 19 trials with 2642 participants provided data for the meta‐analyses. Twelve trials reported commercial funding, one trial reported no financial support, and nine trials provided no information on funding. Below we present the most clinically relevant outcome results, also displayed in our summary of findings table. Fibrin‐based haemostatic agents versus no intervention Six trials (1001 participants) compared FBHAs with no intervention. One trial was at low risk of bias in all five domains, and all other trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Two trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with no intervention have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.44; 4 trials, 782 participants), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; 4 trials, 782 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40; 5 trials, 864 participants), reoperation (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 14.61; 2 trials, 612 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; 4 trials, 782 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. Fibrin‐based haemostatic agents versus non‐fibrin‐based haemostatic agents Sixteen trials (1944 participants) compared FBHAs with non‐FBHAs. All trials had at least one domain at high or unclear risk of bias. Twelve trials were at high risk of bias related to blinding. It is unclear if FBHAs compared with non‐FBHAs have an effect on perioperative mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.72; 11 trials, 1436 participants), postoperative transfusion (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.25; 7 trials, 599 participants), reoperation (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90; 3 trials, 358 participants), or postoperative bile leak (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21; 9 trials, 1115 participants), as the certainty of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. FBHAs compared with non‐FBHAs may have little or no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 9 trials, 1176 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions The evidence for the outcomes in both comparisons (FBHAs versus no intervention and FBHAs versus non‐FBHAs) was of very low certainty (or low certainty in one instance) and cannot justify the routine use of FBHAs to reduce blood loss in adult liver resection. While the meta‐analysis showed a reduced risk of reoperation with FBHAs compared with non‐FBHAs, the analysis was confounded by the small number of trials reporting the event and the risk of bias in all these trials. Future trials should focus on the use of FBHAs in people undergoing liver resection who are at particularly high risk of bleeding. Investigators should evaluate clinically meaningful and patient‐important outcomes and follow the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
刚刚
xinyuli发布了新的文献求助10
刚刚
liangyuting完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
所所应助ShengzhangLiu采纳,获得10
1秒前
Eric发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
Yuan88发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
李健应助探寻采纳,获得10
1秒前
1秒前
眯眯眼的谷冬完成签到 ,获得积分10
2秒前
善学以致用应助堇笙vv采纳,获得10
3秒前
4秒前
liangyuting发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
Bio应助好好学习采纳,获得150
5秒前
扶瑶可接完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
花花发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
我是老大应助Hans采纳,获得10
6秒前
xinyuli完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
加加油完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
7秒前
chang发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
汉堡包应助AlexLXJ采纳,获得10
8秒前
Yuan88完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
科目三应助小白采纳,获得10
9秒前
EvilS完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
9秒前
Eric完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
Helloasis完成签到,获得积分20
10秒前
希音知聏发布了新的文献求助20
10秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
宋浩然发布了新的文献求助30
12秒前
13秒前
JamesPei应助我爱读文献采纳,获得10
13秒前
ShengzhangLiu发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
LaTeXer应助神奇机智的萌采纳,获得50
16秒前
李爱国应助精明的沅采纳,获得10
17秒前
李爱国应助兰月满楼采纳,获得10
20秒前
Sunmmon完成签到,获得积分10
21秒前
21秒前
宋云媚发布了新的文献求助10
21秒前
23秒前
高分求助中
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 700
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
不知道标题是什么 500
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
Effective Learning and Mental Wellbeing 300
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3975375
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3519718
关于积分的说明 11199471
捐赠科研通 3256067
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1798075
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 877386
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 806305