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the reference lists of all primary studies, and contacted the authors of included trials for additional published or unpublished trials.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
1秒前
6秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
slayers完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
8秒前
知犯何逆完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
Krsky完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
ding应助不安的秋白采纳,获得10
13秒前
14秒前
16秒前
HHHAN发布了新的文献求助10
20秒前
威武的沂完成签到,获得积分10
25秒前
27秒前
28秒前
30秒前
笨笨青筠完成签到 ,获得积分10
33秒前
mengmenglv完成签到 ,获得积分0
33秒前
Tonald Yang完成签到 ,获得积分20
36秒前
37秒前
落后的怀梦完成签到 ,获得积分10
38秒前
陈坤完成签到,获得积分10
40秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
42秒前
斯文败类应助zgx采纳,获得10
43秒前
默默完成签到 ,获得积分10
43秒前
KY Mr.WANG完成签到,获得积分10
43秒前
57秒前
guoxingliu完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
1分钟前
阳佟水蓉完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
gdgd完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
1分钟前
叮叮当当完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
1分钟前
1分钟前
电致阿光完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
ccc完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
1分钟前
zgx发布了新的文献求助10
1分钟前
i2stay完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
馒头完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
高分求助中
【提示信息,请勿应助】关于scihub 10000
Les Mantodea de Guyane: Insecta, Polyneoptera [The Mantids of French Guiana] 3000
徐淮辽南地区新元古代叠层石及生物地层 3000
The Mother of All Tableaux: Order, Equivalence, and Geometry in the Large-scale Structure of Optimality Theory 3000
Handbook of Industrial Diamonds.Vol2 1100
Global Eyelash Assessment scale (GEA) 1000
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 550
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 4038039
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3575756
关于积分的说明 11373782
捐赠科研通 3305574
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1819239
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 892655
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 815022