Tranexamic Acid Reduces Major Bleeding in Urologic Surgery

Hemostatic Management in the Urologic Operative Suite

Perioperative hemorrhage remains a frequent complication in urologic practice, particularly during high-volume procedures such as transurethral resection of the prostate and percutaneous nephrolithotomy [1, 2]. While tranexamic acid is established as a standard of care for reducing transfusion requirements in cardiac and orthopedic surgery, its application in urology has historically been limited by concerns over potential thrombotic risks [3, 4]. Previous meta-analyses have suggested that this antifibrinolytic agent, which inhibits the breakdown of fibrin clots, may reduce blood loss in specific urologic contexts, yet the evidence base has consisted largely of small, heterogeneous trials [5, 6]. Consequently, major clinical guidelines have remained silent on its routine use, leaving a significant gap in standardized protocols for patients at high risk of bleeding [7]. A large-scale international trial now provides the necessary clarity on the safety and efficacy of this intervention across a broad urologic population.

Trial Design and Procedural Diversity

The POISE-3 trial was an international randomized trial designed to evaluate the effects of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery who possessed both bleeding and cardiovascular risk factors. Within this larger framework, the researchers conducted an a priori planned analysis (an investigation specified before data collection began) specifically focusing on the subset of patients undergoing urologic surgery. This urologic cohort consisted of 1,124 participants, providing a robust sample size to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the antifibrinolytic agent in this specialty. Of these patients, 556 were randomized to receive tranexamic acid while 568 were assigned to the placebo group. The intervention followed a standardized pharmacological protocol: patients in the treatment arm received a 1 g intravenous bolus of tranexamic acid at the start of surgery, followed by a second 1 g intravenous bolus at the conclusion of the procedure. This dosing strategy was applied across a diverse range of urologic interventions, ensuring the findings are applicable to modern surgical practice. The cohort included 489 laparoscopic or robotic procedures, representing the largest segment of the study population. Additionally, the researchers evaluated 360 open procedures, 244 transurethral procedures, and 31 percutaneous procedures. This broad inclusion of surgical approaches allows clinicians to assess the utility of tranexamic acid across various levels of procedural invasiveness and expected blood loss.

Efficacy in Reducing Hemorrhagic Complications

The researchers evaluated the clinical impact of tranexamic acid by establishing a primary efficacy outcome defined as a 30-day bleeding composite. This composite measure included life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ, ensuring that the analysis captured the most severe hemorrhagic complications physicians manage in the perioperative period. By focusing on these high-stakes events, the study provides a clear metric for how the antifibrinolytic agent influences surgical recovery and patient stability within the first month following a procedure. In the analysis of this primary efficacy endpoint, the composite bleeding outcome occurred in 45 patients (8.1%) in the tranexamic acid group compared to 62 patients (10.9%) in the placebo group. This resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.73 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.50 to 1.07. While the composite measure showed a trend toward reduced bleeding, the data regarding specific categories of hemorrhage provided more definitive evidence for clinical practice, particularly concerning the prevention of significant blood loss that requires intervention or complicates postoperative care. The most notable finding for clinicians was the statistically significant reduction in major bleeding, which occurred in 34 patients (6.1%) receiving tranexamic acid versus 54 patients (9.5%) receiving placebo. This reduction corresponds to a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.97). These results indicate that the administration of two 1 g intravenous boluses of tranexamic acid effectively lowers the incidence of major hemorrhagic events in urologic surgery, supporting its use as a tool for improving surgical outcomes, especially in cases where the baseline risk of bleeding is elevated.

Assessing Thrombotic Safety Signals

To evaluate the potential risks associated with antifibrinolytic therapy, the researchers established a primary safety outcome defined as a 30-day thrombosis composite. This composite measure included myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), which serves as a critical marker of perioperative cardiac stress and subclinical ischemia, as well as nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE). By aggregating these cardiovascular and thromboembolic events, the study aimed to determine if the hemostatic benefits of tranexamic acid were offset by an increased risk of clotting complications in a population already predisposed to cardiovascular stress. The analysis of the safety data revealed that the composite safety outcome occurred in 67 patients (12.1%) in the tranexamic acid group compared to 62 patients (10.9%) in the placebo group. This difference resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.58), indicating that the administration of the drug did not lead to a statistically significant increase in the overall thrombotic burden. When examining the individual components of the safety composite, the researchers found that myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) occurred in 62 patients receiving tranexamic acid versus 58 patients in the placebo group, representing the most frequent event in both cohorts. Other serious thrombotic complications remained rare across both study arms. Specifically, nonhemorrhagic strokes occurred in 2 patients in the tranexamic acid group and 2 patients in the placebo group. Similarly, symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) occurred in 3 patients receiving tranexamic acid and 3 patients receiving placebo. The authors noted that because these patient-important thrombotic events were so few, the study had limited precision for stroke and VTE estimates. Despite these limitations in statistical power for rare events, the overall safety profile suggests that the risk of major arterial or venous thrombosis is not significantly elevated when using tranexamic acid in the urologic surgical setting.

Clinical Implications for Surgical Practice

The consistency of the treatment effect across diverse patient profiles suggests that the benefits of tranexamic acid are broadly applicable within the urologic operative suite. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses to determine if specific clinical variables influenced the efficacy or safety of the drug, but no interactions were identified based on surgical approach, cancer status, or recent antithrombotic usage. This lack of interaction indicates that the reduction in major bleeding remains stable whether a patient is undergoing a robotic, laparoscopic, open, transurethral, or percutaneous procedure. Furthermore, the presence of underlying malignancy or the recent use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications did not significantly alter the therapeutic profile of the 2 g intravenous bolus regimen. These findings provide a robust evidence base for a specialty that has historically lacked clear guidance on antifibrinolytic use. Because the trial demonstrated a significant reduction in major bleeding from 9.5% to 6.1% without a statistically significant increase in the 30-day thrombosis composite (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.58), the authors conclude that the findings support perioperative tranexamic acid use in urologic surgery, particularly when bleeding risk is high. For clinicians managing complex cases where hemorrhagic complications are anticipated, these data offer a clear pharmacological strategy to improve surgical outcomes and minimize the need for invasive hemostatic interventions.

References

1. Feng D, Zhang F, Liu S, Han P, Wei W. The efficacy and safety of the tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. 2020. doi:10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03826-6

2. Mina SH, Garcia-Perdomo HA. Effectiveness of tranexamic acid for decreasing bleeding in prostate surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Central European journal of urology. 2018. doi:10.5173/ceju.2017.1581

3. Houston BL, Uminski K, Mutter T, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Major Non-Cardiac Surgeries at High Risk for Transfusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Transfusion Medicine Reviews. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2019.10.001

4. Ker K, Edwards P, Perel P, Shakur H, Roberts I. Effect of tranexamic acid on surgical bleeding: systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012. doi:10.1136/bmj.e3054

5. Oliveira AVD, Sampaio A, Freitas GA, et al. Tranexamic Acid in Men Undergoing Transurethral Resection of Prostate: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. The Prostate. 2025. doi:10.1002/pros.70095

6. Baccaglini W, Rodrigues AF, Glina F, Dall’Aqua V, Glina S, Neto ACL. Tranexamic Acid Use for Hemorrhagic Events Prevention in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of endourology. 2022. doi:10.1089/end.2021.0792

7. Naseralallah L, Nasrallah D, Alsheikh R, Assami D, Boudaka R. Tranexamic Acid for the Management of Hematuria: A Systematic Review. Urology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2025.12.035