2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.11.065
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thromboelastometry-guided administration of fibrinogen concentrate for the treatment of excessive intraoperative bleeding in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

Abstract: FIBTEM-guided post-cardiopulmonary bypass administration of fibrinogen concentrate resulted in improved intraoperative management of coagulopathic bleeding in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm operations and reduced transfusion and 24-hour drainage volume.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
184
1
4

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 197 publications
(197 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
8
184
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…We also found a robust correlation between FibTEM MCF and A5 [7], which was confirmed in subsequent studies [20,21]. There is also a strong reported correlation between FibTEM A5 measurements and fibrinogen levels [22][23][24][25][26][27][28].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…We also found a robust correlation between FibTEM MCF and A5 [7], which was confirmed in subsequent studies [20,21]. There is also a strong reported correlation between FibTEM A5 measurements and fibrinogen levels [22][23][24][25][26][27][28].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Although an improved Δ MCF was noted in the study by Lance and colleagues [11], this difference did not translate to a reduction in ABT utilization. Overall, thrombotic events were similar in both the intervention group and the comparator arm, with an overall low incidence rate [10][11][12][13][14][15].…”
Section: Efficacy and Safety Outcomes In Cardiac Surgerymentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Compared to studies that used PCC to reverse warfarin anticoagulation, FIBC studies more commonly involved conflicts of interest and industry funding. With these latter studies, the sample size in the prospective arms was generally small (mean, 12; range, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]; and the historical comparator cohorts were not well matched to the intervention arm groups. Therefore, with the exception of randomized controlled trials by Karlsson and colleagues (2009) [10] and Fenger-Eriksen and colleagues (2009) [18], most studies were assessed to have a high degree of methodological bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations