Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 79, Issue 15, pp 1679–1688 | Cite as

The Safety and Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Dhwani Hariharan
  • Marco Mammi
  • Kelicia Daniels
  • Nayan Lamba
  • Kerilyn Petrucci
  • Christian D. Cerecedo-Lopez
  • Joanne Doucette
  • Alexander F. C. Hulsbergen
  • Stefania Papatheodorou
  • Linda S. Aglio
  • Timothy R. Smith
  • Rania A. MekaryEmail author
  • Hasan Zaidi
Systematic Review

Abstract

Objectives

Major spinal corrective surgeries can be associated with critical intra-operative blood loss. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA), a commonly used antifibrinolytic agent, in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, defined as fusion of five or more levels.

Methods

Articles from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov were screened using PRISMA guidelines through December 2018. Thromboembolic events, blood loss, and transfusion levels were primary outcomes of interest. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs) with adult patients (≥ 18 years) were included. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and categorical variables were analyzed using Peto odds ratio (OR), via random effects models.

Results

Of the 604 articles screened, seven studies (two RCTs and five cohort studies) were included. Incidence of thromboembolic events was not statistically significantly different between TXA (1 event/19) and placebo (0 events/13) in the RCT (Peto OR = 1.41, 95% CI 0.05–37.2; 32 patients; 1 study) and in the OBSs (TXA [2 events/135] vs control [0 events/72]; Peto OR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.16–7.61; p-heterogeneity = 0.85; 207 patients; 3 studies). Data from OBSs showed that the pooled MD was statistically significantly lower in the TXA group compared with the control group for intraoperative blood loss (MD: − 620.2 mL, 95% CI − 1066.6 to − 173.7; p-heterogeneity = 0.14; 228 patients; 4 studies) and total transfusion volume (MD: − 958.2 mL, 95% CI − 1867.5 to − 49.0; p-heterogeneity = 0.23; 93 patients; 2 studies).

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, TXA was not significantly associated with increased risk of thromboembolic events but was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss and lower total transfusion volumes in ASD surgery.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The following authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript: Dhwani Hariharan, Marco Mammi, Kelicia Daniels, Nayan Lamba, Kerilyn Petrucci, Christian D Cerecedo-Lopez, Joanne Doucette, Alexander FC Hulsbergen, Stefania Papatheodorou, Linda S. Aglio, Timothy R. Smith, Rania A. Mekary, Hasan Zaidi.

Supplementary material

40265_2019_1185_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (41 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 40 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Silva FE, Lenke LG. Adult degenerative scoliosis: evaluation and management. Neurosurg Focus [Internet]. 2010;E1. https://thejns.org/view/journals/neurosurg-focus/28/3/article-pE1.xml. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  2. 2.
    Hu SS. Blood loss in adult spinal surgery. Eur Spine J [Internet]. 2004;13:S3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0753-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sokolowski MJ, Garvey TA, Perl J, Sokolowski MS, Cho W, Mehbod AA, et al. Prospective study of postoperative lumbar epidural hematoma: incidence and risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2008;33:108–13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165756. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  4. 4.
    Cardone D, Klein AA. Perioperative blood conservation: Eur J Anaesthesiol [Internet]. 2009;26:722–29. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00003643-200909000-00002. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  5. 5.
    Elgafy H, Bransford RJ, McGuire RA, Dettori JR, Fischer D. Blood Loss in Major Spine Surgery: Are There Effective Measures to Decrease Massive Hemorrhage in Major Spine Fusion Surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2010;35:S47–56. Available from: https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00007632-201004201-00007.
  6. 6.
    Brown JR, Birkmeyer NJO, O’Connor GT. Meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and adverse outcomes of antifibrinolytic agents in cardiac surgery. Circulation [Internet]. 2007;115:2801–13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17533182. Accessed 19 July 2018.
  7. 7.
    Alshryda S, Sukeik M, Sarda P, Blenkinsopp J, Haddad FS, Mason JM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the topical administration of tranexamic acid in total hip and knee replacement. Bone Jt J [Internet]. 2014;96-B:1005–15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25086114. Accessed 19 July 2018.
  8. 8.
    Crescenti A, Borghi G, Bignami E, Bertarelli G, Landoni G, Casiraghi GM, et al. Intraoperative use of tranexamic acid to reduce transfusion rate in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial. BMJ [Internet]. 2011;343:d5701.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mangano DT, Miao Y, Vuylsteke A, Tudor IC, Juneja R, Filipescu D, et al. Mortality associated with aprotinin during 5 years following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. 9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietrich W, Späth P, Zühlsdorf M, et al. Anaphylactic reactions to aprotinin reexposure in cardiac surgery: relation to antiaprotinin immunoglobulin G and E antibodies. Anesthesiology. 2001;95(1):64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henry DA, Carless PA, Moxey AJ, O’Connell D, Stokes BJ, Fergusson DA, et al. Anti-fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. In: Collaboration TC, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2011. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001886.pub4.
  12. 12.
    Dunn CJ, Goa KL. Tranexamic acid: a review of its use in surgery and other indications. Drugs [Internet]. 1999;57:1005–32. http://link.springer.com/10.2165/00003495-199957060-00017. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  13. 13.
    Gill JB, Chin Y, Levin A, Feng D. The use of antifibrinolytic agents in spine surgery: a meta-analysis. J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol [Internet]. 2008;90:2399–407. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00004623-200811000-00010. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  14. 14.
    Yang B, Li H, Wang D, He X, Zhang C, Yang P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative intravenous tranexamic acid use in spinal surgery. Landoni G, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2013;8:e55436.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li G, Sun T-W, Luo G, Zhang C. Efficacy of antifibrinolytic agents on surgical bleeding and transfusion requirements in spine surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J [Internet]. 2017;26:140–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4792-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alajmi T, Saeed H, Alfaryan K, Alakeel A, Alfaryan T. Efficacy of tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss and blood transfusion in idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Spine Surg [Internet]. 2017;3:531–40. Available from: http://jss.amegroups.com/article/view/3920/4575. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  17. 17.
    Hui S, Xu D, Ren Z, Chen X, Sheng L, Zhuang Q, et al. Can tranexamic acid conserve blood and save operative time in spinal surgeries? A meta-analysis. Spine J [Internet]. 2018;18:1325–37. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1529943017311920. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  18. 18.
    Lu VM, Ho Y-T, Nambiar M, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. The Perioperative Efficacy and Safety of Antifibrinolytics in Adult Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2018;43:E949–58. http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00007632-201808150-00016. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  19. 19.
    Gong M, Liu G, Chen L, Chen R, Xiang Z. The efficacy and safety of intravenous tranexamic acid in reducing surgical blood loss in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the adult: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg [Internet]. 2019;122:559–68. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30336299. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  20. 20.
    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ [Internet]. 2011;343:d5928. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008217. Accessed 19 July 2018.
  22. 22.
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute [Internet]. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  23. 23.
    Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2014;14:135. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25524443. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  24. 24.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ Engl. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elzik ME, Dirschl DR, Dahners LE. Correlation of transfusion volume to change in hematocrit. Am J Hematol [Internet]. 2006;81:145–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.20517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med [Internet]. 2007;26:53–77. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596572. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  27. 27.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst [Internet]. 1959;22:719–48. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13655060. Accessed 17 Feb 2019.
  28. 28.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ Engl. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biomet US. 1994;50:1088–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peters A, Verma K, Slobodyanyuk K, Cheriyan T, Hoelscher C, Schwab F, et al. Antifibrinolytics reduce blood loss in adult spinal deformity surgery: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2015;40:E443–49. http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00007632-201504150-00004. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  31. 31.
    Carabini LM, Moreland NC, Vealey RJ, Bebawy JF, Koski TR, Koht A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of low-dose tranexamic acid versus placebo to reduce red blood cell transfusion during complex multilevel spine fusion surgery. World Neurosurg [Internet]. 2018;110:e572–79. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1878875017319939. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.
  32. 32.
    Xie J, Lenke LG, Li T, Si Y, Zhao Z, Wang Y, et al. Preliminary investigation of high-dose tranexamic acid for controlling intraoperative blood loss in patients undergoing spine correction surgery. Spine J [Internet]. 2015;15:647–54. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1529943014017690. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  33. 33.
    Choi HY, Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, Kim H-J. Effectiveness and safety of tranexamic acid in spinal deformity surgery. J Korean Neurosurg Soc [Internet]. 2017;60:75–81.  https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.0505.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khurana A, Guha A, Saxena N, Pugh S, Ahuja S. Comparison of aprotinin and tranexamic acid in adult scoliosis correction surgery. Eur Spine J [Internet]. 2012;21:1121–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2205-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pong RP, Leveque JA, Edwards A, Yanamadala V, Wright AK, Herodes M, et al. Effect of tranexamic acid on blood loss, D-dimer, and fibrinogen kinetics in adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Jt Surg [Internet]. 2018;100:758–64. https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=29715224. Accessed 1 Jan 2019.
  36. 36.
    Baldus CR, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Okubadejo GO. Can we safely reduce blood loss during lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy procedures using tranexamic acid or aprotinin?: a comparative study with controls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) [Internet]. 2010;35:235–39. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00007632-201001150-00018. Accessed 28 Oct 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dhwani Hariharan
    • 1
  • Marco Mammi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kelicia Daniels
    • 1
  • Nayan Lamba
    • 2
  • Kerilyn Petrucci
    • 1
  • Christian D. Cerecedo-Lopez
    • 2
  • Joanne Doucette
    • 1
  • Alexander F. C. Hulsbergen
    • 2
  • Stefania Papatheodorou
    • 4
  • Linda S. Aglio
    • 2
    • 5
  • Timothy R. Smith
    • 2
  • Rania A. Mekary
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hasan Zaidi
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PharmacyMCPHS UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neuroscience Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Neurosurgery Unit, Neuroscience DepartmentUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  4. 4.Department of EpidemiologyHarvard TH Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Management, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations