4.2 Article

Efficacy of Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Reducing Blood Loss after Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 233-239

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1268238

Keywords

Tranexamic acid; cesarean section; blood loss; randomized control trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TA) in reducing blood loss during elective cesarean section (CS). We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 660 women who underwent elective CS. The patients were randomly selected to receive an intravenous infusion of either TA (1 g/10 mL in 20 mL of 5% glucose; n = 330) or 30 mL 5% glucose prior to surgery. The primary outcome was the estimated blood loss following CS. No demographic difference was observed between groups. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower in women treated with TA compared with women in the placebo group (499.9 +/- 206.4 mL versus 600.7 +/- 215.7 mL, respectively; p < 0.001), and the proportion of women in the TA group who had an estimated blood loss > 1000 mL was significantly lower than in the placebo group (7 [2.1%] versus 19 [5.8%], respectively; relative risk [RR] 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 6.3; p < 0.03). Furthermore, more women in the placebo group than in the TA group required additional uterotonic agents (48 [14.5%] versus 28 [8.5%], respectively; RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.6; p = 0.02). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly. TA significantly reduced bleeding during CS, the percentage of patients with blood loss > 1000 mL, and the need for additional uterotonic agents. Furthermore, the incidence of thromboembolic events did not increase. Our results suggest that TA can be used safely and effectively to reduce CS bleeding.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available