SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
backgroundTranexamic acid (TXA) is recommended for reducing blood loss and transfusion in cardiac surgery. However, there are concerns regarding the safety profile of TXA, especially its proconvulsant effects. We conducted this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in cardiac surgery.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 11, 2024. Randomised controlled trials assessed the hemostatic effects of TXA in cardiac surgery were included. Two authors independently selected studies and assessed the quality of eligible trials. The main endpoints were red blood cell transfusion and thrombotic outcomes. The results were calculated with pairwise and network meta-analysis.
resultsData was provided by 18,141 participants from 64 trials. High-dose continuous (OR: 0.38, 95%CI: [0.31, 0.47]), low-dose continuous (OR: 0.44, 95%CI: [0.34, 0.56]), high-dose single (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: [0.43, 0.57]), and low-dose single (OR: 0.52, 95%CI: [0.40, 0.67]) TXA significantly reduce the rate of red blood cell transfusion. Furthermore, in high-risk patients, high-dose continuous administration further reduces transfusion risk compared to low-dose continuous administration (OR: 1.22, 95%CI: [1.01, 1.75]). Topical TXA does not significantly reduce the rate of red blood cell transfusion (OR: 0.80, 95%CI: [0.60, 1.07]); conversely, it is associated with a higher rate of red blood cell transfusion compared to intravenous administration. Both intravenous and topical TXA administration reduce postoperative blood loss. High-dose continuous administration further reduces the risk of reoperation (OR: 1.70, 95%CI: [1.03, 2.80]) and the need for fresh frozen plasma transfusion (OR: 1.33, 95%CI: [1.01, 1.74]) compared to low-dose continuous administration. Neither intravenous nor topical TXA increases the incidence of postoperative thrombotic complications. High-dose single administration is associated with a significantly increased risk of postoperative seizures (OR: 6.66, 95%CI: [1.85, 24.02]).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis further confirms that intravenous TXA administration, regardless of dose or administration regimen, significantly reduces postoperative blood loss and red blood cell transfusions in adult cardiac surgery, without increasing the incidence of serious adverse events except for seizures. Future studies should incorporate patient-specific factors, comorbidities, and bleeding risks to determine the optimal TXA dosing strategy that balances risks and benefits.
trial registrationOur prespecified protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022380404).
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.