|
|
||||||||
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hairmyres Hospital, Eaglesham Rd, East Kilbride, Scotland, G75 8RG United Kingdom
(Email: dgwest{at}rcsed.ac.uk).
We read with interest the article from Dr Bakaeen and coworkers at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center reporting their experience with aprotinin in extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) [1]. Although they did not show significant differences in patient blood loss or survival with the use of aprotinin, we believe that aprotinin may well have beneficial effects in this patient population.
We have performed 75 EPP procedures in our institution since 1987. Demographics were similar to the M. D. Anderson experience, with a mean age of 59.3 (SD, 7.2) years, and 54 of 75 (72%) were men. In 1992, we began to use a perioperative intravenous infusion of aprotinin (Trasylol, Bayer AG, Leverkusen Germany), and have continued this practice since. We routinely infused aprotinin at a rate of 500,000 U/h from the beginning of the operation and for 1 to 2 hours into the postoperative period.
Retrospective analysis of our data shows that the earlier no-aprotinin group bled more intraoperatively (2523 [SD, 1403] mL) than the later aprotinin group (2092 [SD, 701] mL) but that this did not reach statistical significance on unpaired t test (p = 0.102). Survival analysis of the aprotinin vs no-aprotinin group again showed a nonsignificant trend towards improved survival with aprotinin (median survival, 17.7 vs 5.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.68; log-rank, p = 0.09), although aprotinin use did not emerge as an independent predictor in our Cox proportional hazards model of survival. Renal dysfunction was documented in 1 of 38 no-aprotinin and 2 of 37 aprotinin patients (p = 0.94).
Extrapleural pneumonectomy involves significant blood loss, and reported postprocedural morbidity rates remain high [2]. Both Dr Bakaeen's group and ours have relatively few patients available for analysis and are potentially confounded by learning curve effects because aprotinin was used in the latter parts of both series. We have used a full-dose aprotinin regimen, and this might explain why the trend towards decreased blood loss was more marked in our series. In neither group has a statistically significant improvement in survival or blood loss been demonstrated. Nevertheless, in our view, the trends towards decreased blood loss, lower transfusion, and improved survival seen in these small series justify the continued study of aprotinin use during EPP, pending the reporting of larger series. As Dr Bakaeen and colleagues suggest, straightforward extrapolation of the recent studies of aprotinin use in cardiac surgery [3] to the unusual situation of EPP surgery may be overly simplistic and deny patients a potentially beneficial therapy.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related Article
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
F. G. Bakaeen and D. Rice Reply. Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 86(1): 355 - 355. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |