Dataset Information

Comparison of fibrin sealants in peripheral vascular surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence comparing fibrin sealants (FSs) in surgery are limited. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FSs, and manual compression in peripheral vascular surgery.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases within the last 15 years. Data were available to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) in peripheral vascular surgery. Fibrin sealant treatment arms were further broken-down and assessed by clotting time (i.e., 2-min [2C] or 1-min [1C]). The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving hemostasis by 4 min (T4). Treatment-related serious and non-serious adverse events (AEs) were qualitatively assessed.

Results

Five studies (n = 693), were included in the NMA. Results predicted VISTASEAL 2C, followed by EVICEL 1C, had the highest probability of achieving T4. Compared with manual compression, significant improvements in T4 were found with VISTASEAL 2C (relative risk [RR] = 2.67, 95% CrI: 2.13–3.34), EVICEL 1C (RR = 2.58, 95% CrI: 2.04–3.23), VISTASEAL 1C (RR = 2.00, 95% CrI: 1.45–2.65), and TISSEEL 2C (RR = 1.99, 95% CrI: 1.48–2.60). TISSEEL 1C was not significantly different than manual compression (RR = 1.40, 95% CrI: 0.70–2.33). Among FSs, VISTASEAL 2C was associated with a significant improvements in T4 compared with VISTASEAL 1C (RR = 1.33, 95% CrI: 1.02–1.82), TISSEEL 2C (RR = 1.34, 95% CrI: 1.05–1.77), and TISSEEL 1C (RR = 1.90, 95% CrI: 1.18–3.74). Treatment-related serious and non-serious AE rates were typically lower than 2%.

Conclusions

In peripheral vascular surgeries, VISTASEAL 2C and EVICEL 1C were shown to have the highest probabilities for achieving rapid hemostasis among the treatments compared. Future studies should expand networks across surgery types as data become available. Highlights • Fibrin sealants can control perioperative bleeding, yet comparative evidence is limited.• This network meta-analysis compared fibrin sealants and compression in peripheral vascular surgery.• VISTASEAL and EVICEL had the highest probability of achieving hemostasis by 4 min.• These results show differences exist between fibrin sealants in peripheral vascular surgery.

SUBMITTER: Danker III W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7782199 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFibrin sealants are widely used in neurosurgery to seal the suture line, provide watertight closure, and prevent cerebrospinal fluid leaks. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current efficacy and safety literature of fibrin sealants in dura sealing and the prevention/treatment of cerebrospinal fluid leaks.MethodsA comprehensive electronic literature search was run in the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Resister of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE/PubMed, and EMBASE. Titles and abstracts of potential articles of interest were reviewed independently by 3 of the authors.ResultsA total of 1006 database records and additional records were identified. After screening for duplicates and relevance, a total of 78 articles were assessed by the investigators for eligibility. Thirty-eight were excluded and the full-text of 40 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Seven of these included only safety data and were included in the safety assessment. The remaining 33 articles included findings from 32 studies that enrolled a total of 2935 patients who were exposed to fibrin sealant. Among these 33 studies there were only 3 randomized controlled trials, with the remaining being prospective cohort analysis, case controlled studies, prospective or retrospective case series. One randomized controlled trial, with 89 patients exposed to fibrin sealant, found a greater rate of intraoperative watertight dura closure in the fibrin sealant group than the control group (92.1% versus 38.0%, p<0.001); however, post-operative cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in more fibrin sealant than control patients (6.7% versus 2.0%, p>0.05). Other clinical trials evaluated the effect of fibrin sealant in the postoperative prevention of cerebrospinal fluid leaks. These were generally lower level evidence studies (ie, not prospective, randomized, controlled trials) that were not designed or powered to demonstrate a significant advantage to fibrin sealant use. Two small case series studies evaluated the effect of fibrin sealants in persistent cerebrospinal fluid leak treatment, but did not establish firm efficacy conclusions. Specific adverse reports where fibrin sealants were used for dura sealing were limited, with only 8 cases reported in neurosurgical procedures since 1987 and most reporting only a speculative relationship/association with fibrin sealant exposure.ConclusionsA major finding of this systematic literature review is that there is a paucity of randomized studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of fibrin sealants in providing intraoperative watertight dura closure and post-operative cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Among the limited studies available, evidence from a single randomized, controlled trial indicates that fibrin sealants provide a higher rate of intraoperative watertight closure of the dura suture line than control, albeit with a higher rate of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Evidence from non-randomized, controlled trials suggests that fibrin sealants may be effective in preventing cerebrospinal fluid leaks with an acceptable safety profile. There is a substantial need for randomized, controlled clinical trials or well-designed prospective observational trials where the conduct of a randomized trial is not feasible to fully assess the impact of fibrin sealant utilization on the rates of intraoperative dura closure, postoperative cerebrospinal leakage, and safety.

Project description:Optimal perioperative fluid management is crucial, with over- or under-replacement associated with complications. There are many strategies for fluid therapy, including liberal fluid therapy (LFT), restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) and goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT), without a clear consensus as to which is better. We aimed to find out which is the more effective fluid therapy option in adult surgical patients undergoing non-vascular abdominal surgery in the perioperative period. This study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with node-splitting analysis of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. We conducted a literature search of Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Only studies comparing restrictive, liberal and goal-directed fluid therapy during the perioperative phase in major non-cardiac surgery in adult patients will be included. Trials on paediatric patients, obstetric patients and cardiac surgery were excluded. Trials that focused on goal-directed therapy monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), as well as those examining purely biochemical and laboratory end points, were excluded. A total of 102 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 78 studies (12,100 patients) were included. NMA concluded that goal-directed fluid therapy utilising FloTrac was the most effective intervention in reducing the length of stay (LOS) (surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 91%, odds ratio (OR) = -2.4, 95% credible intervals (CrI) = -3.9 to -0.85) and wound complications (SUCRA = 86%, OR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.24 to 0.69). Goal-directed fluid therapy utilising pulse pressure variation was the most effective in reducing the complication rate (SUCRA = 80%, OR = 0.25, 95% CrI = 0.047 to 1.2), renal complications (SUCRA = 93%, OR = 0.23, 95% CrI = 0.045 to 1.0), respiratory complications (SUCRA = 74%, OR = 0.42, 95% CrI = 0.053 to 3.6) and cardiac complications (SUCRA = 97%, OR = 0.067, 95% CrI = 0.0058 to 0.57). Liberal fluid therapy was the most effective in reducing the mortality rate (SUCRA = 81%, OR = 0.40, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). Goal-directed therapy utilising oesophageal Doppler was the most effective in reducing anastomotic leak (SUCRA = 79%, OR = 0.45, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). There was no publication bias, but moderate to substantial heterogeneity was found in all networks. In preventing different complications, except mortality, goal-directed fluid therapy was consistently more highly ranked and effective than standard (SFT), liberal or restricted fluid therapy. The evidence grade was low quality to very low quality for all the results, except those for wound complications and anastomotic leak.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-quality evidence from trials directly comparing single antiplatelet therapies in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) to dual antiplatelet therapies or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus low-dose rivaroxaban is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis on the effectiveness of all antithrombotic regimens studied in PAD.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were major adverse limb events (MALE) and acute limb ischaemia (ALI). For each outcome, a frequentist network meta-analysis was used to compare relative risks (RRs) between medication and ASA. ASA was the universal comparator since a majority of studies used ASA as in the reference group.ResultsTwenty-four randomized controlled trials were identified including 48,759 patients. With regard to reducing MACE, clopidogrel [RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93], ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97), ASA plus ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97), and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93) were more effective than ASA, and equally effective to one another. As compared to ASA, major bleedings occurred more frequently with vitamin K antagonists, rivaroxaban, ASA plus vitamin K antagonists, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban. All regimens were similar to ASA concerning MALE, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing ALI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.80). Subgroup analysis in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization revealed that ≥ 3 months after intervention, evidence of benefit regarding clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and ASA plus ticagrelor was lacking, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing MACE (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97) and MALE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97) compared to ASA. ASA plus clopidogrel was not superior to ASA in preventing MACE ≥ 3 months after revascularization. Evidence regarding antithrombotic treatment strategies within 3 months after a peripheral intervention was lacking.ConclusionClopidogrel, ticagrelor, ASA plus ticagrelor, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban are superior to ASA monotherapy and equally effective to one another in preventing MACE in PAD. Of these four therapies, only ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban provides a higher risk of major bleedings. More than 3 months after peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban is superior in preventing MACE and MALE compared to ASA but again at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding, while other treatment regimens show non-superiority. Based on the current evidence, clopidogrel may be considered the antithrombotic therapy of choice for most PAD patients, while in patients who underwent a peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban could be considered for the long-term (> 3 months) prevention of MACE and MALE.