Cochrane · systematic review · CD001884
Desmopressin use for minimising perioperative blood transfusion
Desborough, MJ, Oakland, K, Brierley, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
InjuriesAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
24
current version
GRADE rated
17
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 29.2%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 29.2%Low 9 · 37.5%Moderate 1 · 4.2%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
DDAVP vs placebo or standard care
Population: participants undergoing surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Red cell volume transfused (total) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care | no estimate extracted | 23 studies · 1454 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (total) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care | RR 0.96 [0.86, 1.06] | 25 studies · 1806 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Blood loss (total) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care | no estimate extracted | 28 studies · 1643 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All‐cause mortality DDAVP vs placebo or standard care | 1.09 [0.51, 2.34] | 22 studies · 1631 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All thrombotic events (including myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, other arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care | 1.36 [0.85, 2.16] | 29 studies · 1984 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life DDAVP vs placebo or standard care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup
Population: participants with platelet dysfunction undergoing surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Red cell volume transfused (total) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 388 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (total) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup | RR 0.83 [0.66, 1.04] | 5 studies · 258 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Blood loss (total) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 422 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All‐cause mortality DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup | 0.72 [0.12, 4.22] | 7 studies · 422 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All thrombotic events (including myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, other arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism) DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup | 1.58 [0.6, 4.17] | 7 studies · 422 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life DDAVP vs placebo or standard care: platelet dysfunction subgroup | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
DDAVP vs tranexamic acid
Population: participants undergoing surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Red cell volume transfused (total) DDAVP vs tranexamic acid | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (total) DDAVP vs tranexamic acid | RR 2.42 [1.04, 5.64] | 3 studies · 135 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Blood loss (total) DDAVP vs tranexamic acid | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 115 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All‐cause mortality DDAVP vs tranexamic acid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All thrombotic events (including myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, other arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism) DDAVP vs tranexamic acid | RR 2.92 [0.32, 26.83] | 2 studies · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life DDAVP vs tranexamic acid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
DDAVP vs aprotinin
Population: participants undergoing surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Red cell volume transfused (total) DDAVP vs aprotinin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (total) DDAVP vs aprotinin | RR 2.41 [1.45, 4.02] | 1 study · 99 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Blood loss (total) DDAVP vs aprotinin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
All‐cause mortality DDAVP vs aprotinin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 53 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
All thrombotic events (including myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, other arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism) DDAVP vs aprotinin | 0.98 [0.06, 15.89] | 2 studies · 152 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life DDAVP vs aprotinin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |