Use of intravenous immune globulin in the ICU: a retrospective review of prescribing practices and patient outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is a pooled human blood product. Much of IVIG use in Canada is prescribed for 'unlabelled' or 'off-label' indications. Due to costs, risk of use and limited supply, knowledge about the use of IVIG is important. We collected data regarding the usage of IVIG and outcomes of patients receiving IVIG in the intensive care units (ICUs) of two community and three academic hospitals. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of adult patients who received IVIG in the five ICUs over a 5-year period. Data collection included demographics, severity of illness, indication for and dose of IVIG, mortality and adverse effects. On the basis of a classification developed by Canadian Blood Services, the indications for IVIG were then classified as 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate'. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-five patients received IVIG in the ICU. In all, 19% of IVIG prescriptions were for 'appropriate' indications and 7% were 'inappropriate'. The remaining 74% were prescribed for indications with some evidence to support their use. Three indications accounted for 50% of all IVIG prescribed: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), necrotising fasciitis (NF) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). Both the community and academic centres prescribed IVIG for similar indications. Adverse effects associated with IVIG administration included deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, fever and renal failure, although direct causation related to IVIG could not be established. The overall mortality rate was 55%. CONCLUSIONS: IVIG is used relatively infrequently in the critical care setting. The most common indications were GBS, TEN and NF. Mortality was high. There was no difference between community and academic ICUs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".