TY - JOUR
T1 - Aprotinin in children undergoing repair of congenital heart defects
AU - Penkoske, Patricia A.
AU - Entwistle, Lucy M.
AU - Elaine Marchak, B.
AU - Seal, Robert F.
AU - Gibb, William
PY - 1995/12
Y1 - 1995/12
N2 - Background: Aprotinin use in adults is increasing, and its use in children has recently been reported. Methods: The efficacy of aprotinin in children was tested in 80 children. Patients were in four groups: reoperations (59), neonates (8), extremely cyanotic children (6), and other complex repairs (7). The results were compared with those of 55 control infants and children: reoperations (25), neonates (10), cyanotic (10) and complex (10). Treatment groups were identical in age, sex ratio, cross-clamp time, and bypass time. Results: Patients treated with aprotinin had a significant reduction in chest tube drainage (16.5 ± 9.8 versus 33.4 ± 22.1 mL · kg-1 · h-1; p < 0.001) and time to skin closure (64.2 ± 23.7 versus 80.1 ± 24.6 minutes; p < 0.001). Transfusion requirements were decreased in aprotinin-treated patients (4.2 ± 3.4 versus 6.7 ± 5.2 donors; p < 0.001). All of the control patients were exposed to at least one donor, whereas 10/80 (12.5%) of the aprotinin-treated group had no blood use (p < 0.006). There were no cases of renal insufficiency or allergic reactions in children receiving aprotinin. Three patients had thrombotic episodes: 2 superior vena caval problems and a lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. There were 3 cases of mediastinitis in the aprotinin group versus none in control patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude aprotinin is an effective means of reducing bleeding, operating time, and donor exposure in infants and children. An increased rate of thrombosis and possibly mediastinitis are potential problems.
AB - Background: Aprotinin use in adults is increasing, and its use in children has recently been reported. Methods: The efficacy of aprotinin in children was tested in 80 children. Patients were in four groups: reoperations (59), neonates (8), extremely cyanotic children (6), and other complex repairs (7). The results were compared with those of 55 control infants and children: reoperations (25), neonates (10), cyanotic (10) and complex (10). Treatment groups were identical in age, sex ratio, cross-clamp time, and bypass time. Results: Patients treated with aprotinin had a significant reduction in chest tube drainage (16.5 ± 9.8 versus 33.4 ± 22.1 mL · kg-1 · h-1; p < 0.001) and time to skin closure (64.2 ± 23.7 versus 80.1 ± 24.6 minutes; p < 0.001). Transfusion requirements were decreased in aprotinin-treated patients (4.2 ± 3.4 versus 6.7 ± 5.2 donors; p < 0.001). All of the control patients were exposed to at least one donor, whereas 10/80 (12.5%) of the aprotinin-treated group had no blood use (p < 0.006). There were no cases of renal insufficiency or allergic reactions in children receiving aprotinin. Three patients had thrombotic episodes: 2 superior vena caval problems and a lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. There were 3 cases of mediastinitis in the aprotinin group versus none in control patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We conclude aprotinin is an effective means of reducing bleeding, operating time, and donor exposure in infants and children. An increased rate of thrombosis and possibly mediastinitis are potential problems.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029436203&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0003-4975(95)00877-2
DO - 10.1016/0003-4975(95)00877-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 8604927
AN - SCOPUS:0029436203
SN - 0003-4975
VL - 60
SP - S529-S532
JO - The Annals of thoracic surgery
JF - The Annals of thoracic surgery
IS - SUPPL. 3
ER -