4.6 Review

Prophylactic Activated Recombinant Factor VII in Liver Resection and Liver Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022581

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: Intraoperative blood loss is a frequent complication of hepatic resection and orthotopic liver transplantation. Recombinant activated coagulation factor VII (rFVIIa) is a coagulation protein that induces hemostasis by directly activating factor X. There is no clear information about the prophylactic value of rFVIIa in hepatobiliary surgery, specifically in liver resection and orthotopic liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of rFVIIa prophylaxis to prevent mortality and bleeding resulting from hepatobiliary surgery. Methods: Relevant randomized trials were identified by searching The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index. Randomized clinical trials comparing different rFVIIa prophylactic schemas against placebo or no intervention to prevent bleeding in hepatobiliary surgery were included. Adults undergoing liver resection, partial hepatectomy, or orthotopic liver transplantation were included. Dichotomous data were analyzed calculating odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous data were analyzed calculating mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. Results: Four randomized controlled trials were included. There were no significant differences between rFVIIa and placebo for mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.35-2.62), red blood cell units (MD 0.32; 95% CI -0.08-0.72) or adverse events (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.97-2.49). Conclusions: The available information is limited, precluding the ability to draw conclusions regarding bleeding prophylaxis in hepatobiliary surgery using rFVIIa. Although an apparent lack of effect was observed in all outcomes studied, further research is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据