Hetastarch Administration in Patients Undergoing Open Heart Surgery in Association with Cardiopulmon...
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

Blood Products Advisory Committee June 14, 2002 Laurence Landow MD PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 90 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Hetastarch Administration in Patients Undergoing Open Heart Surgery in Association with Cardiopulmonary Bypass (CPB). Blood Products Advisory Committee June 14, 2002 Laurence Landow MD. Questions for the Committee.

Download Presentation

Blood Products Advisory Committee June 14, 2002 Laurence Landow MD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Blood products advisory committee june 14 2002 laurence landow md

Hetastarch Administration in Patients Undergoing Open Heart Surgery in Association with Cardiopulmonary Bypass (CPB)

Blood Products Advisory Committee

June 14, 2002

Laurence Landow MD


Questions for the committee

Questions for the Committee

  • 1. Is the evidence for excessive bleeding in cardiac surgery patients who receive 6 % hetastarch strong enough to warrant a warning statement in the hetastarch labeling?

  • 2. If there is insufficient evidence for a labeling change, should a randomized controlled trial(s) be conducted to answer this question?

    • If a trial(s) is warranted, please comment on

      • Inclusion and exclusion criteria

      • What endpoints and differences are clinically meaningful

      • Major predictors of blood loss


Blood products advisory committee june 14 2002 laurence landow md

Venous tubing (from the right atrium)

Arterial line microfilter

Arterial tubing (to the aorta)

Roller Pump


Fda background package

FDA Background Package

  • 5 articles

    • 3 retrospective chart reviews

    • 1 case-control epidemiology study

    • 1 meta-analysis


Canver and nichols

Canver and Nichols

  • Chart review

  • “Use of hetastarch in primary CPB circuitry is devoid of any added hemorrhagic risk after coronary bypass.”

Chest 2000; 118:1616-1620


Knutson et al

Knutson et al

  • Chart review

  • “…use of hetastarch … may increase bleeding and transfusion requirements.”

Anesth Analg 2000; 90:801-7


Cope et al

Cope et al

  • Chart review

  • “Hetastarch infusion … produces a clinically important impairment in post-cardiac surgical hemostasis.”

Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63:78-83


Herwaldt et al

Herwaldt et al

  • Case-control study

  • “Patient age and hetastarch were risk factors for hemorrhage”


Wilkes et al

Wilkes et al

  • Meta-analysis

  • “Postoperative blood loss is … lower in patients exposed to albumin than 6 % hetastarch.”

Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72:527-34


Speakers

Speakers

  • Charles C. Canver MD

  • Gary R. Haynes MD, PhD

  • William Sibbald MD


9 reasons to question conclusions based on non randomized trials

9 Reasons to Question Conclusions Based on Non-Randomized Trials


Reason 1

Reason # 1

  • The treatment arms may not be comparable

    • Different inclusion and exclusion criteria across trials

    • Different severity of illness scores (“risk adjustment”)

    • Different scoring systems used to assess risk


Reason 2

Reason # 2

  • Even with sophisticated statistical techniques, one can never be sure that key outcome predictors have been recognized and adjusted for

    • Recognized risk factors

      • Age, gender, severity of illness

    • Unrecognized/unmeasured risk factors

      • Genetic predisposition

      • Socio-economic status


Reason 3

Reason # 3

  • Standards of medical care change over time

    • Canver et al: Spanned 8 years


Reason 4

Reason # 4

  • Treatment endpoints vary between protocols

    • Knutson et al:

      • “No specific transfusion algorithms used during the study period”

      • “No rigorous guidelines for the infusion of hetastarch, albumin, or crystalloid”


Reason 5

Reason # 5

  • Patient selection and treatment can be biased

    • Canver et al: perfusionist selected which solution to use in the pump prime

      • HES might have been avoided in older patients, patients with renal failure


Reason 6

Reason # 6

  • Confounding is likely

    • Knudson et al: HES vs “non-HES” group

      • lower temperatures on bypass

      • longer times on bypass

      • higher frequency of preoperative anticoagulant use


Reason 6 cont d

Reason # 6 (cont’d)

  • Confounding is likely

    • Cope et al: Volume expansion different across groups


Reason 6 cont d1

Reason # 6 (cont’d)

  • Confounding is likely

    • Pump prime

      • Cope et al: Albumin + crystalloid

      • Knutson et al: HES not used

      • Canver et al: HES, crystalloid, albumin, albumin + HES


Reason 7

Adequate statistical power does not ensure lack of bias or confounding

~ 200 subjects required to detect an absolute 10% increase in blood loss

Knutson et al (N=445): confounded with respect to CPB time and temperature

Canver et al (N=887): biased with respect to patient selection and treatment

Cope et al (N=189): confounded with respect to fluid management

Reason # 7


Reason 8

Reason # 8

  • The quality of the data is often uneven

    • Endpoints

      • Different

      • Defined differently

      • Not pre-specified

    • Missing or inaccurate data not easily identifiable

    • Different variables collected


Reason 9

Reason # 9

  • Reporting bias is possible

    • Positive findings are reported whereas negative findings are not


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Non-randomized clinical trials tend to exaggerate effect size


Questions for the committee1

Questions for the Committee

  • 1. Is the evidence for excessive bleeding in cardiac surgery patients who receive 6 % hetastarch strong enough to warrant a warning statement in the hetastarch labeling?

  • 2. If there is insufficient evidence for a labeling change, should a randomized controlled trial(s) be conducted to answer this question?

    • If a trial(s) is warranted, please comment on

      • Inclusion and exclusion criteria

      • What endpoints and differences are clinically meaningful

      • Major predictors of blood loss


  • Login