Use of Aprotinin versus Tranexamic Acid in Cardiac Surgery Patients with High-Risk for Excessive Bleeding (APACHE) trial: a multicentre retrospective comparative non-randomized historical study.

OBJECTIVES: Following the reintroduction of aprotinin into the European market, the French Society of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Anaesthesiologists recommended its prophylactic use at half-dose for high-risk cardiac surgery patients. We examined whether the use of aprotinin instead of tranexamic acid could significantly reduce severe perioperative bleeding. METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, historical study included cardiac surgery patients treated with aprotinin or tranexamic acid between December 2017 and September 2020. The primary efficacy end point was the severe or massive perioperative bleeding (class 3-4 of the universal definition of perioperative bleeding). The safety secondary end points included the occurrence of thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Among the 693 patients included in the study, 347 received aprotinin and 346 took tranexamic acid. The percentage of patients with severe or massive bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (42.1% vs 43.6%, Adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-1.23, P = 0.44), as was the perioperative need for blood products (81.0% vs 83.2%, ORadj = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-1.17, P = 0.20). However, the median (Interquartile range) 12 h postoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the aprotinin group (383 ml [241-625] vs 450 ml [290-730], P < 0.01). Compared to tranexamic acid, the intraoperative use of aprotinin was associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events (adjusted Hazard ratio 2.30 [95% Cl: 1.06-5.30]; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Given the modest reduction in blood loss at the expense of a significant increase in thromboembolic adverse events, aprotinin use in high-risk cardiac surgery patients should be based on a carefully considered benefit-risk assessment.

Daily Telephone Call During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perceptions of Families and Providers.

BACKGROUND: In intensive care units (ICUs), the quality of communication with families is a key point in the caregiver-patient-family relationship. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital visits were prohibited, and many ICUs implemented a daily telephone call strategy to ensure continuity of communication with patients' families. OBJECTIVE: To assess how family members and health care providers perceived this communication strategy. METHODS: The study was conducted in a 45-bed ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communication with families consisted of a single daily telephone call from the senior physician in charge of the patient to the patient's surrogate decision maker. Satisfaction was qualitatively assessed via an anonymous online questionnaire with open-ended questions. RESULTS: Participants completed 114 questionnaires. Forty-six percent of surrogate decision makers stated that the key medical messages were understandable, but 57% of other family members expressed that the frequency of information delivery was insufficient. Fifty-six percent of the physicians described the practice as functional for the organization of the unit. Among health care providers other than physicians, 55% felt that not having to interact with families decreased their emotional load and 50% mentioned saving time and the absence of task interruptions as positive aspects. CONCLUSION: Fixed-time, daily telephone calls in the ICU allowed satisfactory transmission of information between physicians and surrogate decision makers, as perceived by both parties. However, the telephone-based communication strategy could still be improved.