The Annals of thoracic surgery · 1995
Aprotinin in children undergoing repair of congenital heart defects.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Penkoske P A, Entwistle L M, Marchak B E, Seal R F, Gibb W
Аннотация
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.
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.