Avecor Trillium Oxygenator Versus Noncoated Monolyth Oxygenator: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The surface coating of a synthetic surface is currently investigated to decrease the harmful effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). This study was designed to study the effects of the surface coating of a hollow fiber membrane oxygenator on coagulation, inflammation markers, and clinical outcomes. The biomaterials used to coat the membrane include heparin, polyethylene oxide chains (PEO), and sulfate/sulfonate groups. The coated membrane was compared to an uncoated oxygenator made of polypropylene. METHODS: Two hundred patients who were scheduled to undergo valve repair and/or replacement surgery with or without coronary surgery were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomized to undergo CPB with either the Avecor oxygenator with Trillium (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), a biopassive surface, or the Monolyth (Sorin, Irvine, CA, USA) oxygenator without coating. The primary and secondary endpoints were the differences between these oxygenators in regard to patients' biochemistry, coagulation profiles, inflammatory mediators, and clinical outcomes, including blood loss and neurological events. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of biochemistry, coagulation profile, inflammatory mediator release, and blood loss. Five patients in the Avecor group showed clinical evidence of a stroke confirmed with computerized tomography (CT) scan imaging, and none in the noncoated oxygenator group. CONCLUSION: The oxygenator Avecor offers similar results in terms of inflammation and coagulation profiles and blood loss during valvular surgery compared to a standard uncoated control oxygenator. The rate of neurological events was unusually elevated in the former group of patients, with only speculative explanation at this point. Further studies are warranted to clarify this aspect.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".