Comprehensive Canadian Review of the Off-Label Use of Recombinant Activated Factor VII in Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This observational study sought to identify the off-label use pattern of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) in cardiac surgery and to identify predictors of its effectiveness and risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: At 18 Canadian centers, 522 nonhemophiliac cardiac surgical patients received rFVIIa during the period 2003 through 2006; data were available, and retrospectively collected, on 503 patients. The median (quartile 1, quartile 3) units of red blood cells transfused from surgery to therapy and in the 24 hours after therapy were 8 (5, 12) and 2 (1, 5), respectively (P<0.0001). Mortality rate was 32%, and mortality or major morbidity rate was 44%. These rates were within expected ranges (mortality, 27% to 35%; mortality or morbidity, 39% to 48%), which were calculated with a separate cohort of cardiac surgical patients who did not receive rFVIIa used as reference. Independent predictors of complications included instability before therapy (multiple inotropes or intra-aortic balloon pump) and increasing red blood cell units transfused before and after therapy. Variables independently associated with nonresponse included abnormal coagulation parameters and >15 red blood cell units transfused before therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, rFVIIa is used primarily when standard interventions have failed to control bleeding. In this setting, rFVIIa is associated with reduced blood product transfusions and, after risk adjustment, does not appear to be associated with increased or decreased complication rates. The effectiveness of the drug may be enhanced if it is given early in the course of refractory blood loss in the setting of adequate amounts of circulating coagulation factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".