4.6 Article

High-Dose Tranexamic Acid Is Associated with Nonischemic Clinical Seizures in Cardiac Surgical Patients

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 350-353

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c92b23

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of Western Ontario

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: in 2 separate centers, we observed a notable increase in the incidence of postoperative convulsive seizures from 1.3% to 3.8% in patients having undergone major cardiac surgical procedures. These events were temporally coincident with the initial use of high-dose tranexamic acid (TXA) therapy after withdrawal of aprotinin from general clinical usage. The purpose of this review was to perform a retrospective analysis to examine whether there was a relation between TXA usage and seizures after cardiac surgery. METHODS: An in-depth chart review was undertaken in all 24 patients who developed perioperative seizures. Electroencephalographic activity was recorded in 11 of these patients, and all patients had a formal neurological evaluation and brain imaging studies. RESULTS: Twenty-one of the 24 patients did not have evidence of new cerebral ischemic injury, but seizures were likely due to ischemic brain injury in 3 patients. All patients with seizures did not have permanent neurological abnormalities. All 24 patients with seizures received high doses of TXA intraoperatively ranging from 61 to 259 mg/kg, had a mean age of 69.9 years, and 21 of 24 had undergone open chamber rather than coronary bypass procedures. All but one patient were managed using cardiopulmonary bypass. No evidence of brain ischemic, metabolic, or hyperthermia-induced causes for their seizures was apparent. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that use of high-dose TXA in older patients in conjunction with cardiopulmonary bypass and open-chamber cardiac surgery is associated with clinical seizures in susceptible patients. (Anesth Analg 2010;110:350-3)

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