ReviewCureus2024
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Tranexamic Acid vs. Placebo in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hemostasis, myocardial protection, and advanced monitoring in cardiovascular anesthesia: evidence-based practical insights.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tranexamic acid (TXA), a potent antifibrinolytic agent, is widely used in cardiac surgical procedures worldwide to minimize surgical bleeding and reduce the need for perioperative blood transfusions. However, the use of TXA may increase the risk of coronary artery graft thrombosis, potentially leading to a higher occurrence of late thrombotic events. Some studies have suggested that drugs like TXA, aimed at decreasing bleeding during cardiac surgeries, may be associated with elevated risks of thrombotic complications or mortality. Conversely, the reduced need for blood transfusions could contribute to improved long-term outcomes. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to assess the efficacy of TXA in cardiac surgery patients. Searches were conducted in databases including PubMed and PubMed Central. Data were extracted, and their quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A random effects model was used to compute the pooled prevalence and investigate heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses differentiated between experimental and placebo groups. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings, and publication bias was examined. An overall sample size of 12,869 patients was included in the meta-analysis, derived from seven of the 10 selected articles. This pooled sample was used to conduct an analysis of TXA's efficacy in cardiac surgery patients. Subgroup analysis revealed a 95% heterogeneity and indicated a p-value of less than 0.05, favoring TXA over placebo in terms of better outcomes. Our research indicates a statistically significant relationship between the efficacy of TXA and the number of patients undergoing heart surgery. According to our findings, there is a pressing need to enhance this evidence base and conduct larger RCTs to better understand the benefits of using TXA, aiming to maintain a low risk of bleeding after both major and minor heart surgeries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.