MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851064493 · doi:10.2196/resprot.4338

Normothermic Versus Hypothermic Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Children Undergoing Open Heart Surgery (Thermic-2): Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W1851064493 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Baos, Karen Sheehan, Lucy Culliford, Katie Pike, Lucy Ellis, Andrew Parry, Șerban Stoica, Mohamed Ghorbel, Massimo Caputo, Chris Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassHypothermiaAnesthesiaHeart rateRandomized controlled trialPopulationCardiac surgeryClinical endpointSurgeryBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During open heart surgery, patients are connected to a heart-lung bypass machine that pumps blood around the body ("perfusion") while the heart is stopped. Typically the blood is cooled during this procedure ("hypothermia") and warmed to normal body temperature once the operation has been completed. The main rationale for "whole body cooling" is to protect organs such as the brain, kidneys, lungs, and heart from injury during bypass by reducing the body's metabolic rate and decreasing oxygen consumption. However, hypothermic perfusion also has disadvantages that can contribute toward an extended postoperative hospital stay. Research in adults and small randomized controlled trials in children suggest some benefits to keeping the blood at normal body temperature throughout surgery ("normothermia"). However, the two techniques have not been extensively compared in children. OBJECTIVE: The Thermic-2 study will test the hypothesis that the whole body inflammatory response to the nonphysiological bypass and its detrimental effects on different organ functions may be attenuated by maintaining the body at 35°C-37°C (normothermic) rather than 28°C (hypothermic) during pediatric complex open heart surgery. METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of normothermic versus hypothermic bypass in 141 children with congenital heart disease undergoing open heart surgery. Children having scheduled surgery to repair a heart defect not requiring deep hypothermic circulatory arrest represent the target study population. The co-primary clinical outcomes are duration of inotropic support, intubation time, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, blood loss and transfusion requirements, pre- and post-operative echocardiographic findings, routine blood gas and blood test results, renal function, cerebral function, regional oxygen saturation of blood in the cerebral cortex, assessment of genomic expression changes in cardiac tissue biopsies, and neuropsychological development. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients have been successfully randomized over 2 years and 10 months and are now being followed-up for 1 year. Results will be published in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this to be the first large pragmatic study comparing clinical outcomes during normothermic versus hypothermic bypass in complex open heart surgery in children. It is expected that this work will provide important information to improve strategies of cardiopulmonary bypass perfusion and therefore decrease the inevitable organ damage that occurs during nonphysiological body perfusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN93129502, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN93129502 (Archived by WebCitation at http://www.webcitation.org/6Yf5VSyyG).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207