Key result
FEIBA lacks sufficient robust evidence to confirm safety or efficacy for refractory cardiac surgery bleeding.
Systematic Review
INTRODUCTION: Significant blood loss during cardiac surgery is associated with a dramatic increase in morbidity and mortality. Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity (FEIBA), a hemostatic bypassing agent mainly used in hemophiliac patients, has also been used for intractable bleeding during cardiac surgical procedures in non-hemophiliac patients. However, concerns exist that its use may be linked to increased incidence of perioperative adverse effects including thrombotic complications. AREAS COVERED: A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for all studies that reported the administration of FEIBA for treatment of bleeding during adult cardiac surgery in non-hemophiliac patients. After selecting the title and abstracts, two authors assessed the methodological quality of the full-text articles prior to final inclusion in the manuscript. EXPERT OPINION: The safety profile of FEIBA was determined through an aggregate count of adverse events. Major complications included renal failure, re-operation for unresolved bleeding, postoperative mortality, and thromboembolic events. Overall, there is insufficient robust evidence to make a definitive conclusion about the safety or efficacy of using of FEIBA as a hemostatic agent in the setting of cardiac surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khoury et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review in Refractory bleeding during cardiac surgery. Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity (FEIBA) was evaluated on Safety and efficacy (perioperative adverse events including renal failure, re-operation for bleeding, mortality, and thromboembolic events). FEIBA use for refractory bleeding in adult cardiac surgery had insufficient robust evidence to definitively establish its safety or efficacy, with no quantitative outcomes reported in the abstract.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: