The Efficacy of an Intraoperative Cell Saver During Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cell salvage may be used during cardiac surgery to avoid allogeneic blood transfusion. It has also been claimed to improve patient outcomes by removing debris from shed blood, which may increase the risk of stroke or neurocognitive dysfunction. In this study, we sought to determine the overall safety and efficacy of cell salvage in cardiac surgery by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify all randomized trials of cell saver use during cardiac surgery. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstract databases were searched up to November 2008. All randomized trials comparing cell saver use and no cell saver use in cardiac surgery and reporting at least one predefined clinical outcome were included. The random effects model was used to calculate the odds ratios (OR, 95% confidence intervals [CI]) and the weighted mean differences (WMD, 95% CI) for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomized trials involving 2282 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During cardiac surgery, the use of an intraoperative cell saver reduced the rate of exposure to any allogeneic blood product (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.94, P = 0.02) and red blood cells (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.92, P = 0.02) and decreased the mean volume of total allogeneic blood products transfused per patient (WMD -256 mL, 95% CI: -416 to -95 mL, P = 0.002). There was no difference in hospital mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.25-1.68, P = 0.37), postoperative stroke or transient ischemia attack (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.20-1.76, P = 0.34), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69-1.23, P = 0.56), renal dysfunction (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.41-1.80, P = 0.70), infection (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 0.75-2.10, P = 0.39), patients requiring fresh frozen plasma (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.66, P = 0.40), and patients requiring platelet transfusions (OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.63-1.28, P = 0.55) between cell saver and noncell saver groups. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the use of a cell saver reduces exposure to allogeneic blood products or red blood cell transfusion for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Subanalyses suggest that a cell saver may be beneficial only when it is used for shed blood and/or residual blood or during the entire operative period. Processing cardiotomy suction blood with a cell saver only during cardiopulmonary bypass has no significant effect on blood conservation and increases fresh frozen plasma transfusion.
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 | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".