Meta-analysis: the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss during caesarean delivery.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frederick Guinness, Ciara Hanley, Aidan Spring
{"title":"Meta-analysis: the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss during caesarean delivery.","authors":"Frederick Guinness, Ciara Hanley, Aidan Spring","doi":"10.1007/s11845-024-03834-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The 2022 national guideline on The Prevention and Management of Primary Postpartum Haemorrhage (PPH) recommended consideration of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) for women who are at high PPH risk undergoing caesarean section (CS). This meta-analysis reviews the basis for this recommendation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PubMed, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (from inception to January 2024) for randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic intravenous TXA with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing CS who received a uterotonic. Our main outcome was PPH > 1L. Secondary outcomes included estimated mean blood loss, blood transfusion, drop in haemoglobin, the need for additional uterotonics, or surgical intervention. Adverse effects of TXA were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-one studies including 25,098 women were identified, and 12,446 received prophylactic TXA. Patients who received prophylactic TXA had significantly reduced likelihood of PPH > 1L (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59), reduced estimated mean blood loss (MD 185.86 ml, 95% CI 159.14-212.59), and reduced drop in Hb (MD 0.84g/dl, 95% CI 0.72, 0.95). There was a significant reduction in need for additional uterotonics (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.57) or surgical intervention (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reduced risk of PPH > 1L was greatest in patients at higher risk of bleeding. The greatest risk reduction was seen in smaller studies and in studies undertaken in developing economies. Prophylactic TXA administration is effective at reducing the incidence of PPH > 1L at CS. The clinical benefit of universal prophylaxis is questionable; women who are high risk of PPH are more likely to derive benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":14507,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-024-03834-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The 2022 national guideline on The Prevention and Management of Primary Postpartum Haemorrhage (PPH) recommended consideration of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) for women who are at high PPH risk undergoing caesarean section (CS). This meta-analysis reviews the basis for this recommendation.

Method: PubMed, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (from inception to January 2024) for randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic intravenous TXA with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing CS who received a uterotonic. Our main outcome was PPH > 1L. Secondary outcomes included estimated mean blood loss, blood transfusion, drop in haemoglobin, the need for additional uterotonics, or surgical intervention. Adverse effects of TXA were also assessed.

Results: Sixty-one studies including 25,098 women were identified, and 12,446 received prophylactic TXA. Patients who received prophylactic TXA had significantly reduced likelihood of PPH > 1L (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59), reduced estimated mean blood loss (MD 185.86 ml, 95% CI 159.14-212.59), and reduced drop in Hb (MD 0.84g/dl, 95% CI 0.72, 0.95). There was a significant reduction in need for additional uterotonics (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.57) or surgical intervention (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.95).

Conclusion: The reduced risk of PPH > 1L was greatest in patients at higher risk of bleeding. The greatest risk reduction was seen in smaller studies and in studies undertaken in developing economies. Prophylactic TXA administration is effective at reducing the incidence of PPH > 1L at CS. The clinical benefit of universal prophylaxis is questionable; women who are high risk of PPH are more likely to derive benefit.

导言:2022 年《原发性产后出血(PPH)的预防和管理》国家指南建议考虑对接受剖腹产(CS)的 PPH 高危产妇进行预防性氨甲环酸(TXA)治疗。本荟萃分析回顾了这一建议的依据:方法:检索了PubMed、OVID Medline、EMBASE、科学引文索引、Scopus、CENTRAL和ClinicalTrials.gov(从开始到2024年1月)的随机对照试验,比较预防性静脉注射TXA与安慰剂或对接受子宫收缩剂的CS产妇不进行治疗的情况。我们的主要结果是 PPH > 1L。次要结果包括估计平均失血量、输血、血红蛋白下降、是否需要额外使用子宫收缩剂或手术干预。此外,还对 TXA 的不良反应进行了评估:结果:共确定了 61 项研究,包括 25,098 名妇女,其中 12,446 人接受了预防性 TXA。接受预防性 TXA 的患者发生 PPH > 1L 的可能性明显降低(RR,0.47;95% CI,0.38 至 0.59),估计平均失血量减少(MD 185.86 ml,95% CI 159.14-212.59),血红蛋白下降减少(MD 0.84g/dl,95% CI 0.72-0.95)。需要额外使用子宫收缩剂(RR 0.47,95% CI 0.39-0.57)或手术干预(RR 0.54,95% CI 0.30-0.95)的情况明显减少:在出血风险较高的患者中,PPH > 1L 的风险降低幅度最大。较小规模的研究和在发展中经济体进行的研究降低的风险最大。预防性应用 TXA 可有效降低 CS 时 PPH > 1L 的发生率。普遍预防的临床益处值得怀疑;PPH 高危产妇更有可能从中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Irish Journal of Medical Science
Irish Journal of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the official organ of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. Established in 1832, this quarterly journal is a contribution to medical science and an ideal forum for the younger medical/scientific professional to enter world literature and an ideal launching platform now, as in the past, for many a young research worker. The primary role of both the Academy and IJMS is that of providing a forum for the exchange of scientific information and to promote academic discussion, so essential to scientific progress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信