Efficacy and safety of activated recombinant factor VII in cardiac surgical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Excessive bleeding is a common and morbid problem after cardiac surgery. There is no doubt a need for an effective and safe hemostatic agent in order to minimize transfusions and avoid surgical reintervention for hemostasis. Recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is being used (off-label) increasingly after cardiac surgery to prevent or to control hemorrhage, but its efficacy and safety remain unclear. RECENT FINDINGS: Several case reports, case series and registries would tend to support the use of activated recombinant factor VII to control excessive bleeding after cardiac operations. On the contrary, two randomized controlled trials have produced negative results whereas a third has not been published yet. Adverse thrombotic events are reported with increasing frequency. SUMMARY: At present, the generalized use of rFVIIa to prevent or to control excessive bleeding after cardiac surgery cannot be recommended. The decision to administer a potent hemostatic such as rFVIIa outside its recognized prescribing indications should be made with caution by well informed physicians and discussed with the patient. Patients should be informed about knowledge gaps and pertinent risks, which are both important in the case of rFVIIa.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".