4.6 Article

A critical evaluation of cryoprecipitate for replacement of fibrinogen

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 149, 期 6, 页码 834-843

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08208.x

关键词

cryoprecipitate; fibrinogen concentrate; congenital fibrinogen deficiency; acquired fibrinogen deficiency; perioperative bleeding

资金

  1. CSL Behring
  2. Novo Nordisk
  3. Grifols
  4. LFB
  5. Baxter
  6. Bayer
  7. Octapharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Maintaining the plasma fibrinogen concentration is important to limit excessive perioperative blood loss. This article considers the evidence for this statement, and questions the justification for using cryoprecipitate rather than virus-inactivated fibrinogen concentrate to support plasma fibrinogen levels. Haemophilia was historically treated with cryoprecipitate, but specific coagulation factor concentrates are now preferred. In contrast, primary fractions of allogeneic donor blood, including cryoprecipitate, are still commonly used to treat perioperative bleeding. When compared with cryoprecipitate and fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), freeze-dried fibrinogen concentrate offers standardized fibrinogen content, faster reconstitution and improved efficacy. Pasteurization and purification processes employed in the preparation of fibrinogen concentrate reduce the risk of pathogen transmission and immune-mediated complications, in comparison with cryoprecipitate and FFP. When all costs associated with administration are taken into consideration, the cost of fibrinogen concentrate is not substantially different to that of cryoprecipitate. In conclusion, wider availability and use of fibrinogen concentrate may improve the management of perioperative bleeding. Further benefits may accrue from more rapid and accurate techniques for monitoring fibrinogen levels. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate methods of measuring fibrinogen and assessing fibrin polymerization, and to define critical haemostatic plasma fibrinogen concentrations in different perioperative situations.

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