随机对照试验:比较不同纤维蛋白原制剂在恢复血凝块硬度方面的效果

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ekaterina Baryshnikova, Tommaso Aloisio, Umberto Di Dedda, Martina Anguissola, Alessandro Barbaria, Giuseppe Caravella, Marco Ranucci
{"title":"随机对照试验:比较不同纤维蛋白原制剂在恢复血凝块硬度方面的效果","authors":"Ekaterina Baryshnikova, Tommaso Aloisio, Umberto Di Dedda, Martina Anguissola, Alessandro Barbaria, Giuseppe Caravella, Marco Ranucci","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Different preparations of fibrinogen concentrate are currently available. Two in vitro studies demonstrated the superiority of FibCLOT (LFB) in increasing clot firmness with respect to RiaSTAP (CSL Behring). The present trial involved a clinical model to test the hypothesis of superiority, with the increase in clot firmness as the primary end point.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty cardiac surgery patients were randomly allocated to receive a dose of 30 mg/kg FibCLOT or RiaSTAP after protamine administration in the presence of microvascular bleeding and a FIBTEM maximum clot firmness (MCF) <10 mm. Viscoelastic parameters were measured before and after fibrinogen supplementation: FIBTEM MCF, EXTEM MCF, and EXTEM clotting time (CT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean increase in FIBTEM MCF was 4 ± 1.2 mm (mean and standard deviation) in the FibCLOT group and 4 ± 1.6 mm in the RiaSTAP group (P = 1.000); the mean decrease in CT was 11. 2 ± 12.2 (mean and standard deviation) seconds in the FibCLOT group and 14. 8 ± 13 seconds in the RiaSTAP group (P = .372). In both groups, fibrinogen supplementation induced a significant (P = .001) increase in the FIBTEM MCF and EXTEM CT. The proportions of patients who did not experience an increase of 4 mm in the RiaSTAP group and the FibCLOT group were not statistically significantly higher (35% vs 20%, respectively, relative risk 2.15, 95% confidence interval 0.52-9.00, P = .288).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In contrast to previous in vitro studies, we found that the effect of FibCLOT on MCF and CT was not significantly greater than that of RiaSTAP in cardiac surgery patients. Further studies in other clinical settings are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Effectiveness of Different Fibrinogen Preparations in Restoring Clot Firmness.\",\"authors\":\"Ekaterina Baryshnikova, Tommaso Aloisio, Umberto Di Dedda, Martina Anguissola, Alessandro Barbaria, Giuseppe Caravella, Marco Ranucci\",\"doi\":\"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Different preparations of fibrinogen concentrate are currently available. Two in vitro studies demonstrated the superiority of FibCLOT (LFB) in increasing clot firmness with respect to RiaSTAP (CSL Behring). The present trial involved a clinical model to test the hypothesis of superiority, with the increase in clot firmness as the primary end point.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty cardiac surgery patients were randomly allocated to receive a dose of 30 mg/kg FibCLOT or RiaSTAP after protamine administration in the presence of microvascular bleeding and a FIBTEM maximum clot firmness (MCF) <10 mm. Viscoelastic parameters were measured before and after fibrinogen supplementation: FIBTEM MCF, EXTEM MCF, and EXTEM clotting time (CT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean increase in FIBTEM MCF was 4 ± 1.2 mm (mean and standard deviation) in the FibCLOT group and 4 ± 1.6 mm in the RiaSTAP group (P = 1.000); the mean decrease in CT was 11. 2 ± 12.2 (mean and standard deviation) seconds in the FibCLOT group and 14. 8 ± 13 seconds in the RiaSTAP group (P = .372). In both groups, fibrinogen supplementation induced a significant (P = .001) increase in the FIBTEM MCF and EXTEM CT. The proportions of patients who did not experience an increase of 4 mm in the RiaSTAP group and the FibCLOT group were not statistically significantly higher (35% vs 20%, respectively, relative risk 2.15, 95% confidence interval 0.52-9.00, P = .288).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In contrast to previous in vitro studies, we found that the effect of FibCLOT on MCF and CT was not significantly greater than that of RiaSTAP in cardiac surgery patients. Further studies in other clinical settings are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007201\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007201","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前市面上有不同的纤维蛋白原浓缩物制剂。两项体外研究表明,与 RiaSTAP(CSL Behring)相比,FibCLOT(LFB)在增加凝块坚固性方面更具优势。本试验采用临床模型来验证其优越性假设,并将血凝块坚固性的增加作为主要终点:方法:40 名心脏手术患者随机分配,在出现微血管出血和 FIBTEM 最大血凝块坚固度(MCF)的情况下,服用 30 mg/kg 的 FibCLOT 或 RiaSTAP:FibCLOT 组 FIBTEM MCF 平均增加 4 ± 1.2 mm(平均值和标准偏差),RiaSTAP 组增加 4 ± 1.6 mm(P = 1.000);CT 平均减少 11.2±12.2(平均值和标准差)秒,RiaSTAP 组为 14.8 ± 13 秒(P = .372)。在两组中,纤维蛋白原补充剂都会导致 FIBTEM MCF 和 EXTEM CT 显著增加(P = .001)。在 RiaSTAP 组和 FibCLOT 组,未增加 4 mm 的患者比例在统计学上没有明显增加(分别为 35% vs 20%,相对风险 2.15,95% 置信区间 0.52-9.00,P = .288):结论:与之前的体外研究不同,我们发现在心脏手术患者中,FibCLOT 对 MCF 和 CT 的影响并没有明显高于 RiaSTAP。有必要在其他临床环境中进行进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Effectiveness of Different Fibrinogen Preparations in Restoring Clot Firmness.

Background: Different preparations of fibrinogen concentrate are currently available. Two in vitro studies demonstrated the superiority of FibCLOT (LFB) in increasing clot firmness with respect to RiaSTAP (CSL Behring). The present trial involved a clinical model to test the hypothesis of superiority, with the increase in clot firmness as the primary end point.

Methods: Forty cardiac surgery patients were randomly allocated to receive a dose of 30 mg/kg FibCLOT or RiaSTAP after protamine administration in the presence of microvascular bleeding and a FIBTEM maximum clot firmness (MCF) <10 mm. Viscoelastic parameters were measured before and after fibrinogen supplementation: FIBTEM MCF, EXTEM MCF, and EXTEM clotting time (CT).

Results: The mean increase in FIBTEM MCF was 4 ± 1.2 mm (mean and standard deviation) in the FibCLOT group and 4 ± 1.6 mm in the RiaSTAP group (P = 1.000); the mean decrease in CT was 11. 2 ± 12.2 (mean and standard deviation) seconds in the FibCLOT group and 14. 8 ± 13 seconds in the RiaSTAP group (P = .372). In both groups, fibrinogen supplementation induced a significant (P = .001) increase in the FIBTEM MCF and EXTEM CT. The proportions of patients who did not experience an increase of 4 mm in the RiaSTAP group and the FibCLOT group were not statistically significantly higher (35% vs 20%, respectively, relative risk 2.15, 95% confidence interval 0.52-9.00, P = .288).

Conclusions: In contrast to previous in vitro studies, we found that the effect of FibCLOT on MCF and CT was not significantly greater than that of RiaSTAP in cardiac surgery patients. Further studies in other clinical settings are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
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