Temperature Management During Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Effect of Rewarming Rate on Cognitive Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothermia is a very strong neuroprotective agent during cerebral ischemia. However, several randomized clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a protective effect of hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass on postoperative cognitive deficits. The lack of neuroprotection may be due to rapid rewarming, which in turn may result in cerebral hyperthermia. The purpose of this study was to detennine if rapid rewarming at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with an increased risk of postoperative neuropsychologic impairment. Methods: A battery of neuropsychologic tests were administered preand postoperatively to patients undergoing elective coronary bypass surgery. Patients were allowed to drift to 34°C then rewarmed to 37.5°C at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the median time to rewarm (21 minutes): a rapid group (n = 70) and a slow group (n = 76). Results: The 2 groups of patients were similar for all pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables, with the exception of rewarming times (15 ± 4 minutes [mean ± SD]) in the rapid group versus 30 ± 9 minutes in the slow group, p < 0.001). The rapid group had a significantly higher prevalence of neuropsychologic impairment 1 week postoperatively than the slow group (82% versus 57%, p < 0.05), as well as worse mean scores on all neuropsychologic tests. There was a nonsignificant trend toward increased neuropsychologic impairment 3 months postoperatively in the rapid group, as well as worse mean scores on 8 of the 10 tests. Conclusions: Rapid rewarming at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass may increase the risk of postoperative cognitive impairment. Until further studies are performed, rapid rewarming should be avoided in order to minimize the risk of cerebral hyperthermia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".