Trends in red blood cell transfusion and 30‐day mortality among hospitalized patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood conservation strategies have been shown to be effective in decreasing red blood cell (RBC) utilization in specific patient groups. However, few data exist describing the extent of RBC transfusion reduction or their impact on transfusion practice and mortality in a diverse inpatient population. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using comprehensive electronic medical record data from 21 medical facilities in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. We examined unadjusted and risk-adjusted RBC transfusion and 30-day mortality coincident with implementation of RBC conservation strategies. RESULTS: The inpatient study cohort included 391,958 patients who experienced 685,753 hospitalizations. From 2009 to 2013, the incidence of RBC transfusion decreased from 14.0% to 10.8% of hospitalizations; this change coincided with a decline in pretransfusion hemoglobin (Hb) levels from 8.1 to 7.6 g/dL. Decreased RBC utilization affected broad groups of admission diagnoses and was most pronounced in patients with a nadir Hb level between 8 and 9 g/dL (n = 73,057; 50.8% to 19.3%). During the study period, the standard deviation of risk-adjusted RBC transfusion incidence across hospitals decreased by 44% (p < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality did not change significantly with declines in RBC utilization in patient groups previously studied in clinical trials nor in other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: After the implementation of blood conservation strategies, RBC transfusion incidence and pretransfusion Hb levels decreased broadly across medical and surgical patients. Variation in RBC transfusion incidence across hospitals decreased from 2010 to 2013. Consistent with clinical trial data, more restrictive transfusion practice did not appear to impact 30-day mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".