4.5 Article

Factor XIII activity in patients requiring surgical re-exploration for bleeding after elective cardiac surgery - A prospective case control study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 18-25

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.11.012

关键词

Factor XIII; Cardiothoracic surgery; Surgical re-exploration; Coagulation; Bleeding

资金

  1. CSL Behring, Pennsylvania, United States

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Surgical re-exploration due to postoperative bleeding is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to assess a potential association between the level of postoperative FXIII activity and need for re-exploration due to bleeding in patients undergoing cardiothoradc surgery. Materials and methods: In our prospective single center observational cohort study, we enrolled patients who underwent elective cardiothoracic surgery. Patients who required re-exploration (RE group) were matched to patients from the study population (non-RE group). Results: The study included 64 patients, out of a cohort of 678 patients, of whom 32 required surgical reexploration due to bleeding within the first 24 h. Between patients of the RE and non-RE group, a significantly reduced FXIII activity was observed postoperatively (59.0 vs 71.1; p = .014). Multivariable analysis revealed reduced FXIII activity (p= .048) as a parameter independently associated with surgical re-exploration. Further, reduced FXIII activity (p = .037) and surgical re-exploration (p=.01) were significantly associated with increased 30 day mortality. In multivariable analysis re-exploration was independently associated with increased risk of 30 day mortality (p = .004, HR 9.68). Conclusions: Reduced postoperative FXIII activity may be associated with the need for surgical re-exploration. Postoperative assessment of FXIII activity should therefore be considered in patients undergoing elective cardiothoracic surgery. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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