Efficacy and safety of repeated perioperative doses of recombinant factor VIIa in liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) have excessive blood loss during surgery that requires blood transfusions, leading to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. We studied the efficacy and safety of activated recombinant factor VII (rFVIIa) in reducing transfusion requirements in OLT. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients undergoing OLT because of cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B or C). Patients received a repeated intravenous bolus regimen of rFVIIa 60 or 120 microg/kg or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the total number of red blood cell (RBC) units transfused during the perioperative period. A total of 182 patients were analyzed for efficacy and 183 for safety. No significant effect of rFVIIa was observed on the number of RBC units transfused or intraoperative blood loss compared with the placebo group. A significantly higher number of patients in the rFVIIa study groups avoided RBC transfusion. Administration of rFVIIa but not placebo restored the preoperative prolonged prothrombin time to normal value during surgery. Patients receiving rFVIIa and placebo did not experience a significant difference in rate of thromboembolic events. Additionally, there was no statistically significant effect of rFVIIa treatment on hospitalization rate, total surgery time, and the proportion of patients undergoing retransplantation. In conclusion, use of rFVIIa during OLT significantly reduced the number of patients requiring RBC transfusion. There was no increase in thromboembolic events with rFVIIa administration compared with placebo.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".