根治性膀胱切除术中使用氨甲环酸的有效性和安全性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Caio Vinicius Suartz, Henrique L Lepine, Caio Felipe Araujo Matalani, Mariana Pinho E Albuquerque Parente, Diogo Santana Moura, Leonardo Bandeira Cerqueira Zollinger, Roberto Iglesias Lopes, José Bessa Júnior, Maurício Dener Cordeiro, Leonardo O Reis, Jeremy Teoh Yuen Chun, José Maurício Motta, William Carlos Nahas, Paul Toren, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-Filho
{"title":"根治性膀胱切除术中使用氨甲环酸的有效性和安全性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Caio Vinicius Suartz, Henrique L Lepine, Caio Felipe Araujo Matalani, Mariana Pinho E Albuquerque Parente, Diogo Santana Moura, Leonardo Bandeira Cerqueira Zollinger, Roberto Iglesias Lopes, José Bessa Júnior, Maurício Dener Cordeiro, Leonardo O Reis, Jeremy Teoh Yuen Chun, José Maurício Motta, William Carlos Nahas, Paul Toren, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-Filho","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.9266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but it is associated with substantial perioperative blood loss and high transfusion rates. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing surgical blood loss across various specialties; however, due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials in the RC setting, its role remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to synthesize the current evidence and provide a critical assessment of TXA use during RC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies evaluating TXA during RC were identified through a comprehensive search of multiple databases up to November 2024. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and perioperative blood transfusion rates and estimated blood loss. The secondary outcome assessed was thromboembolic events RESULTS: Five studies comprising 1736 patients were included. TXA did not significantly reduce estimated blood loss (MD: -85.56 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] -191.13-20.02, p>0.05) or intraoperative transfusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.40-1.33, p>0.05); however, TXA was associated with a lower likelihood of perioperative transfusions (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97, p<0.05). Notably, TXA increased the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.15-4.65, p<0.05). Heterogeneity varied across analyses, with robotic-assisted RC underrepresented in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that, in patients undergoing RC, the use of TXA does not significantly reduce estimated blood loss or intraoperative transfusion rates. Moreover, TXA appears to be associated with an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, suggesting a potential pro-thrombotic effect. Based on these findings, its routine use in this context cannot be recommended, particularly when intended to reduce thromboembolic risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid use during radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Caio Vinicius Suartz, Henrique L Lepine, Caio Felipe Araujo Matalani, Mariana Pinho E Albuquerque Parente, Diogo Santana Moura, Leonardo Bandeira Cerqueira Zollinger, Roberto Iglesias Lopes, José Bessa Júnior, Maurício Dener Cordeiro, Leonardo O Reis, Jeremy Teoh Yuen Chun, José Maurício Motta, William Carlos Nahas, Paul Toren, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-Filho\",\"doi\":\"10.5489/cuaj.9266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but it is associated with substantial perioperative blood loss and high transfusion rates. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing surgical blood loss across various specialties; however, due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials in the RC setting, its role remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to synthesize the current evidence and provide a critical assessment of TXA use during RC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies evaluating TXA during RC were identified through a comprehensive search of multiple databases up to November 2024. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and perioperative blood transfusion rates and estimated blood loss. The secondary outcome assessed was thromboembolic events RESULTS: Five studies comprising 1736 patients were included. TXA did not significantly reduce estimated blood loss (MD: -85.56 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] -191.13-20.02, p>0.05) or intraoperative transfusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.40-1.33, p>0.05); however, TXA was associated with a lower likelihood of perioperative transfusions (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97, p<0.05). Notably, TXA increased the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.15-4.65, p<0.05). Heterogeneity varied across analyses, with robotic-assisted RC underrepresented in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that, in patients undergoing RC, the use of TXA does not significantly reduce estimated blood loss or intraoperative transfusion rates. Moreover, TXA appears to be associated with an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, suggesting a potential pro-thrombotic effect. Based on these findings, its routine use in this context cannot be recommended, particularly when intended to reduce thromboembolic risk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9266\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9266","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导语:根治性膀胱切除术(Radical cystectomy, RC)是肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC)的标准治疗方法,但它与大量围手术期失血和高输血率相关。氨甲环酸(TXA),一种抗纤溶剂,已证明在减少手术失血在各种专科的疗效;然而,由于在RC环境中缺乏随机对照试验,其作用仍然不确定。我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以综合当前的证据,并提供了在RC期间TXA使用的关键评估。方法:通过对截至2024年11月的多个数据库的综合检索,确定了在RC期间评价TXA的研究。主要结局包括术中和围术期输血率和估计失血量。评估的次要结局是血栓栓塞事件。结果:包括1736例患者的5项研究被纳入。TXA没有显著降低估计失血量(MD: -85.56 mL; 95%可信区间[CI] -191.13-20.02, p>0.05)或术中输血率(优势比[or] 0.73, 95% CI 0.40-1.33, p>0.05);然而,TXA与围手术期输血的可能性较低相关(OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97)。结论:本系统评价和荟萃分析显示,在接受RC的患者中,使用TXA并不能显著降低估计的出血量或术中输血率。此外,TXA似乎与血栓栓塞事件发生率增加有关,提示潜在的促血栓作用。基于这些发现,不能推荐在这种情况下常规使用,特别是当旨在降低血栓栓塞风险时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid use during radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but it is associated with substantial perioperative blood loss and high transfusion rates. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing surgical blood loss across various specialties; however, due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials in the RC setting, its role remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to synthesize the current evidence and provide a critical assessment of TXA use during RC.

Methods: Studies evaluating TXA during RC were identified through a comprehensive search of multiple databases up to November 2024. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and perioperative blood transfusion rates and estimated blood loss. The secondary outcome assessed was thromboembolic events RESULTS: Five studies comprising 1736 patients were included. TXA did not significantly reduce estimated blood loss (MD: -85.56 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] -191.13-20.02, p>0.05) or intraoperative transfusion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.40-1.33, p>0.05); however, TXA was associated with a lower likelihood of perioperative transfusions (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97, p<0.05). Notably, TXA increased the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.15-4.65, p<0.05). Heterogeneity varied across analyses, with robotic-assisted RC underrepresented in the included studies.

Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that, in patients undergoing RC, the use of TXA does not significantly reduce estimated blood loss or intraoperative transfusion rates. Moreover, TXA appears to be associated with an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, suggesting a potential pro-thrombotic effect. Based on these findings, its routine use in this context cannot be recommended, particularly when intended to reduce thromboembolic risk.

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
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信