This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (19 JAN 2011)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Antifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic injury

  1. Tim Coats2,
  2. Ian G Roberts1,*,
  3. Haleema Shakur3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Injuries Group

Published Online: 8 OCT 2008

Assessed as up-to-date: 3 AUG 2004

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004896.pub2

How to Cite

Coats T, Roberts IG, Shakur H. Antifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic injury. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004896. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004896.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Cochrane Injuries Group, London, UK

  2. 2

    Leicester Royal Infirmary, Department of Emergency Medicine, Leicester, UK

  3. 3

    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Nutrition & Public Health Intervention Research Unit, London, UK

*Ian G Roberts, Cochrane Injuries Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, North Courtyard, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. ian.roberts@lshtm.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 8 OCT 2008

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article.View current version (19 Jan 2011)

 
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Auer 1979

MethodsProbable RCT: "Twenty patients were included in a double-blind study; nine patients were treated with Trasylol. Eleven received a placebo drug." However, five additional patients were added to the study and received aprotinin treatment. These patients were not separated out in the analysis.


ParticipantsPatients with severe head injury who had remained comatose for seven days. Most of them had clinical brain stem signs.


InterventionsAprotinin group: 500,000 IE initially thereafter 200,000 IV every four hours.


OutcomesDeath.
Range of biochemical end points.


NotesBecause it was not possible to separate the 5 non-randomised patients from the 20 probably randomised patients, this study provides no useable outcome data.


Risk of bias

ItemAuthors' judgementDescription

Allocation concealment?UnclearB - Unclear





McMichan 1982

MethodsRCT: Aprotinin and placebo were supplied in identical coded ampoules. Ampoules were in boxes of 50 with a code number assigned to each box. These numbers were randomised in groups of 20 and each batch was assigned in numerical order. The codes were not broken until the end of the study.

Patients excluded after randomisation were those who died within the first 24 hours or refused continuing investigation.


ParticipantsPatients with a combination of hypovolaemic shock and major fractures of the lower limb and or pelvis. Patients seen 12 or more hours after injury and those with major head or chest injuries were excluded.


InterventionsAprotinin group: 500,000 Kallikrein Inhibitor Units (KIU) IV statim followed by 300,000 KIU at 6-hour intervals for 96 hours.


OutcomesDeath.
Mean blood transfusion.
Respiratory function.


Notes77 patients were randomised but there were 7 post-randomisation exclusions. Among the 7 excluded patients, there were 3 deaths within the frist 24 hours of injury. One patient was transferred to another hospital because of quadriplegia and died later, and three patients refused investigation.
It was noted in the results that the data on transfusion requirement was found to have a non-normal distrubution. Nevertheless, the mean and standard deviation were presented.


Risk of bias

ItemAuthors' judgementDescription

Allocation concealment?YesA - Adequate



 
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

StudyReason for exclusion

Gierhake 1971Types of patients: general surgery patients not trauma.

Husted 2003Types of patients: orthopaedic patients not trauma.

Klobow 1977aTypes of interventions: trasylol compared with heparin.

Klobow 1977bTypes of interventions: trasylol compared with heparin.

Kuiian 1999Types of studies: After Dr Vasiliy Vlassov, Director of the Russian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre kindly translated the methods section it was clear that this study was not randomised.

Loew 1970Types of studies: alternation used not random allocation.

Nissen 1989Types of studies: review article not randomised controlled trial.

Schneider 1976Types of studies: randomisation in this trial was by allocating patients to the treatment group according to the day of admission. However, this procedure was subverted for large numbers (813) of patients in which case the study cannot be considered to be a randomised controlled trial.



 
Comparison 1. Aprotinin versus none

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Death170Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.13 [0.01, 2.63]

 2 Proportion undergoing surgical intervention170Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.5 [0.43, 5.28]

3 Proportion undergoing re-operation00Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Not estimable

4 Proportion receiving blood transfusion00Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Not estimable

 5 Volume of blood transfused170Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)-0.40 [-0.91, 0.11]