Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,152

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Aprotinin and Lysine Analogues in High-Risk Cardiac Surgery

Open access
Fergusson, Dean A., Hébert, Paul C., Mazer, C. David, Fremes, Stephen, MacAdams, Charles, Murkin, John M., Teoh, Kevin, Duke, Peter C., Arellano, Ramiro, Blajchman, Morris A., Bussières, Jean S., Côté, Dany, Karski, Jacek, Martineau, Raymond, Robblee, James A., Rodger, Marc, Wells, George, Clinch, Jennifer, Pretorius, Roanda·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antifibrinolytic agents are commonly used during cardiac surgery to minimize bleeding and to reduce exposure to blood products. We sought to determine whether aprotinin was superior to either tranexamic acid or aminocaproic acid in decreasing massive postoperative bleeding and other clinically important consequences. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded trial, we randomly assigned 2331 high-risk cardiac surgical patients to one of three groups: 781 received aprotinin, 770 received tranexamic acid, and 780 received aminocaproic acid. The primary outcome was massive postoperative bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause at 30 days. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of a higher rate of death in patients receiving aprotinin. A total of 74 patients (9.5%) in the aprotinin group had massive bleeding, as compared with 93 (12.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and 94 (12.1%) in the aminocaproic acid group (relative risk in the aprotinin group for both comparisons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 1.05). At 30 days, the rate of death from any cause was 6.0% in the aprotinin group, as compared with 3.9% in the tranexamic acid group (relative risk, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.42) and 4.0% in the aminocaproic acid group (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.36). The relative risk of death in the aprotinin group, as compared with that in both groups receiving lysine analogues, was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.22). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the possibility of a modest reduction in the risk of massive bleeding, the strong and consistent negative mortality trend associated with aprotinin, as compared with the lysine analogues, precludes its use in high-risk cardiac surgery. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN15166455 [controlled-trials.com].).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0802395

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,152

Metadata

Authors
Fergusson, D. A., Hébert, P. C., Mazer, C. D., Fremes, S., MacAdams, C., Murkin, J. M., Teoh, K., Duke, P. C., Arellano, R., Blajchman, M. A., Bussières, J. S., Côté, D., Karski, J., Martineau, R., Robblee, J. A., Rodger, M., Wells, G., Clinch, J., & Pretorius, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-05-29
Volume
358
Issue
22
Pages
2319-2331
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2107522704
Cited by
1,152
References
1
FWCI
67.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Aprotinin and Lysine Analogues in High-Risk Cardiac Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0802395
The paper
Fergusson, D. A., Hébert, P. C., Mazer, C. D., Fremes, S., MacAdams, C., Murkin, J. M., Teoh, K., Duke, P. C., Arellano, R., Blajchman, M. A., Bussières, J. S., Côté, D., Karski, J., Martineau, R., Robblee, J. A., Rodger, M., Wells, G., Clinch, J., & Pretorius, R. (2008). A Comparison of Aprotinin and Lysine Analogues in High-Risk Cardiac Surgery. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0802395

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.