The effect of oxygenator membranes on blood: a comparison of two oxygenators in open-heart surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open-heart surgery (OHS) requires cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in most patients. Membrane oxygenators are a critical component of the CPB system. Despite advancements in CPB technology, injury to blood components during CPB still occurs and may result in complications after surgery. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the performance of the Medtronic Affinity NT with Trillium coating and the Cobe Optima XP oxygenators and compare their influence on blood components. Two hundred and fifty-six male and female patients scheduled for urgent or elective cardiac surgery with CPB were randomly assigned to either the Affinity NT or the Optima XP oxygenators. Outcomes included platelets, hemoglobin, leukocyte counts, and O2 transfer, measured preoperatively and at 15, 45 and 75 min of CPB time. Blood loss was measured at six and 12 hours postoperatively. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. The two groups were similar for age, sex, height, weight, body surface area, and blood components at baseline. There were no differences between the Affinity NT and Optima XP for any outcome measure, although a significant change with time was seen in platelets, hemoglobin, hematocrit and leukocytes, as well as O2 transfer for both groups (p < 0.001). The Affinity NT oxygenator had a significantly lower difference in pressure across the membrane (p < 0.001) compared with the Optima XP. In conclusion, the two oxygenators performed similarly with respect to their impact on blood components, O2 transfer, and blood loss postoperatively during OHS with CPB. The Affinity NT had the smaller transmembrane pressure drop of the two.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".