4.4 Article

Is intravenous tranexamic acid effective and safe during hip fracture surgery? An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY
Volume 139, Issue 7, Pages 893-902

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-019-03118-6

Keywords

Hip fracture; Meta-analysis; Thromboembolism; Tranexamic acid; Transfusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) tranexamic acid (TXA) during hip fracture surgery remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of IV-TXA administration during hip fracture surgery for reducing the transfusion requirement and blood loss as well as its safety regarding the risk of thrombolysis.Materials and methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library Database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on the efficacy and safety of IV-TXA in patients during hip fracture surgery. The primary outcome was the transfusion requirement. Secondary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and total thromboembolic events (TTEs). Risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous data outcomes were determined from the meta-analysis. Data were analyzed using Rev Man 5.3.ResultsAltogether, 11 RCTs were included (total sample size 892 patients). IV-TXA significantly reduced the transfusion requirement [RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.93, P=0.02] and TBL (MD 326.64ml, 95% CI -462.23 to -191.06, P<0.00001) vs. cosntrol group. IV-TXA caused no increased risk of DVT (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, P=0.13) or TTEs (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05, P=0.12).ConclusionAvailable evidence indicates that IV-TXA efficaciously reduces TBL and transfusion requirements during hip fracture surgery without significantly increasing the risk of TTEs including DVT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available