XXXX after open heart surgery: comparison of   - @entity7115 and @entity927 .

@entity1 @entity8 @entity712 @entity410 @entity548 @entity7115 @entity928 @entity930 @entity376 @entity86 @entity927
OBJECTIVE: Although the @entity376 analogs @entity927 ( @entity928 ) and @entity7115 ( @entity930 ) are used widely for antifibrinolytic therapy in cardiac surgery, relatively little research has been performed on their safety profiles, especially in the setting of cardiac surgery. Two antifibrinolytic protocols using either @entity928 or @entity7115 were compared according to postoperative outcome. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis. SETTING: A university-affiliated hospital. @entity1 : Six hundred four @entity1 undergoing cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: One cohort of 275 consecutive @entity1 received @entity928 ; a second cohort of 329 consecutive @entity1 was treated with EACA. Except for antifibrinolytic therapy, the anesthetic and surgical teams and their protocols remained unchanged. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Besides major outcome criteria, namely @entity86 , the need for allogeneic transfusions, operative revision because of @entity548 , @entity8 , neurologic events, @entity712 , and in-hospital mortality, the authors specifically sought differences between the groups concerning @entity410 . The 2 cohorts were comparable over a range of perioperative factors. @entity410 occurred significantly more frequently in @entity928 @entity1 (7.6% v 3.3%, p = 0.019), whereas EACA @entity1 had a higher incidence of @entity8 (20.0% v 30.1%, p = 0.005). There were no differences in all other measured major outcome factors. CONCLUSION: Both @entity376 analogs are associated with significant side effects, which must be taken into account when performing risk-benefit analyses of their use. Their use should be restricted to @entity1 at high risk for @entity548 ; routine use on low-risk @entity1 undergoing standard surgeries should face renewed critical reappraisal.
