Objective: The optimal dose and efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were under controversial, and we aimed to make comparisons between different doses of TXA and EACA in intravenous (IV) or intra-articular (IA) applications in patients undergoing TKA.Methods: This network meta-analysis was guided by the Priority Reporting Initiative for Systematic Assessment and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). According to the administrations of antifibrinolytic agents, patients in eligible studies were divided into three subgroups: (i) IA applications of TXA and EACA; (ii) IV applications (g) of TXA and EACA; (iii) IV applications (mg/kg) of TXA and EACA. Total blood loss (TBL), hemoglobin (HB) drops and transfusion rates were the primary outcomes, while drainage volume, pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) risk were the secondary outcomes. A multivariate Bayesian random-effects model was adopted in the network analysis.Results: A total of 38 eligible trials with different regimens were assessed. Overall inconsistency and heterogeneity were acceptable. Taking all primary outcomes into account, 1.0-3.0 g TXA were most effective in IA applications, 1-6 g TXA and 10-14 g EACA were most effective in IV applications (g), while 30 mg/kg TXA and 150 mg/kg EACA were most effective in IV applications (mg/kg). None of the regimens showed increasing risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) compared with placebo.Conclusion: 0 g IA TXA, 1.0 g IV TXA or 10.0 g IV EACA, as well as 30 mg/kg IV TXA or 150 mg/kg IV EACA were most effective and enough to control bleeding for patients after TKA. TXA was at least 5 times more potent than EACA.
Objective
There were limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epsilon‐aminocaproic acid (EACA) versus tranexamic acid (TXA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of TXA and EACA in the combination of intravenous (IV) and intra‐articular (IA) administration on reducing blood loss in patients following primary TKA.
Methods
From January 2020 to January 2021, a total of 181 patients undergoing a primary unilateral TKA were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients in the TXA group (n = 90) received 20 mg/kg of intravenous TXA preoperatively, 1 g of intra‐articular TXA intraoperatively, and three doses of 20 mg/kg intravenous TXA at 0, 3, 6 h postoperatively. Patients in the EACA group (n = 91) received 120 mg/kg of intravenous EACA preoperatively, 2 g of intra‐articular EACA intraoperatively, and three doses of 40 mg/kg intravenous EACA at 0, 3, 6 h postoperatively. The primary outcomes were total blood loss (TBL), transfusion rates and drop of hemoglobin (HB) level. The secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital stays and postoperative complications. The chi‐square tests and Fisher's exact tests were utilized to compare categorical variables, while the independent‐samples t‐tests and Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare continuous variables.
Results
The patients who received TXA averaged less TBL than the patients who received EACA (831.83 ml vs 1065.49 ml, P = 0.015), and HB drop in TXA group was generally less than that of EACA group on postoperative day 1 and 3 (20.84 ± 9.48 g/L vs 24.99 ± 9.40 g/L, P = 0.004; 31.28 ± 11.19 vs 35.46 ± 12.26 g/L, P = 0.047). The length of postoperative stays in EACA group was 3.66 ± 0.81 day, which is longer than 2.62 ± 0.68 day in TXA group (P < 0.001). No transfusions were required in either group. The risk of nausea and vomiting in TXA group was significantly higher than that in EACA group (11/90 vs 0/91, P < 0.01).
Conclusion
Although the TBL and HB drop were slightly greater in EACA group, these results were not clinically important, given that no transfusions were required. EACA could be an alternative to TXA, especially for patients with severe nausea and vomiting after using TXA postoperatively. Further studies are needed to adjust dosage of EACA to make better comparison of the two drugs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.