The Cardiotomy Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reinfusion of unprocessed cardiotomy blood during cardiac surgery can introduce particulate material into the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit, which may contribute to postoperative cognitive dysfunction. On the other hand, processing of this blood by centrifugation and filtration removes coagulation factors and may potentially contribute to coagulopathy. We sought to evaluate the effects of cardiotomy blood processing on blood product use and neurocognitive functioning after cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing coronary and/or aortic valve surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass were randomized to receive unprocessed blood (control, n=134) or cardiotomy blood that had been processed by centrifugal washing and lipid filtration (treatment, n=132). Patients and treating physicians were blinded to treatment assignment. A strict transfusion protocol was followed. Blood transfusion data were analyzed using Poisson regression models. The treatment group received more intraoperative red blood cell transfusions (0.23+/-0.69 U versus 0.08+/-0.34 U, P=0.004). Both red blood cell and nonred blood cell blood product use was greater in the treatment group and postoperative bleeding was greater in the treatment group. Patients were monitored intraoperatively by transcranial Doppler and they underwent neuropsychometric testing before surgery and at 5 days and 3 months after surgery. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction in the 2 groups (relative risk: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.57 at 5 days postoperatively; relative risk: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.90 at 3 months). There was no difference in the quality of life nor was there a difference in the number of emboli detected in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, processing of cardiotomy blood before reinfusion results in greater blood product use with greater postoperative bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. There is no clinical evidence of any neurologic benefit with this approach in terms of postoperative cognitive function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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".