Use of a Centrifugal Vortex Blood Pump and Heparin-Bonded Circuit for Extracorporeal Rewarming of Severe Hypothermia in Acutely Injured and Coagulopathic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard rewarming methods for posttraumatic hypothermia are ineffective or require systemic heparinization. Centrifugal vortex blood pumps (CVBPs), heparin-bonded circuits, and, potentially, percutaneous access techniques, facilitate the institution of an extracorporeal circulation by noncardiac surgeons. METHODS: Seven severely hypothermic patients requiring emergent operative intervention were rewarmed intraoperatively using the CVBP with heparin-bonded circuitry. RESULTS: Patients were critically ill (average Injury Severity Score of 43.5 [SD, 13.6] for the traumatized patients). The mean temperature before rewarming was 31.5 degrees C (SD, 1.6 degrees C). The CVBP outflow site was the common femoral vein in all patients, with the inflow into the superficial femoral artery (n = 2), contralateral common femoral vein (n = 2), and internal jugular vein (n = 3). The mean time to rewarm to 37 degrees C was 73.3 (SD, 30.5) minutes. All patients survived the initial operation, although the ultimate survival was 43%. CONCLUSION: Noncardiac surgeons can effectively use an extracorporeal rewarming strategy incorporating a heparin-bonded CVBP to rapidly rewarm hypothermic coagulopathic patients undergoing surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".