A National Survey of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Adult Cardiac Surgery Across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize national and regional patterns of antimicrobial prophylaxis in adult cardiac surgery across Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Thirty-three adult cardiac surgical centres across Canada. INTERVENTIONS: A one-page questionnaire collecting information regarding institutional demographics and antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens for adult cardiac surgical procedures was mailed to all adult surgical centres across Canada. If a response was not received within one month, a second survey was mailed, followed by a telephone reminder within two weeks of the second mailing. MAIN RESULTS: The Overall response rate was 100%. Prophylactic antimicrobials were used in all the adult cardiac centres; single-agent prophylaxis was used in 97% (32 of 33) of centres; Single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis was used in only 3% (one of 33) of centres. Preoperative and postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens varied both between provinces and within provinces across Canada. Cefazolin was the antimicrobial used in 88% (38 of 43) and 87% (33 of 38) of the reported pre-operative and post-operative prophylaxis regimens, respectively. Antimicrobial prophylaxis was initiated in the operating room 72% (26 of 36) of the time and intra-operative supplemental antimicrobial doses were administered for cardiac procedures longer than a median of 4 hours (range 4 to 8 hr). Overall, the median duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis was 36 hours (range 8 to 96 hr). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of various published guidelines, our survey identified several areas for improvement with respect to antimicrobial prophylaxis in adult cardiac surgery across Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".