MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fresh frozen plasma transfusion in critically ill patients*

2007· article· en· W2015127758 on OpenAlexaffabout
François Lauzier, Lauren E. Griffith, Julia Upton, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFresh frozen plasmaIntensive care unitContext (archaeology)Retrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineIntensive careCoagulopathyIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Although guidelines for fresh frozen plasma (FFP) use have been published, many transfusions are considered inappropriate. Current guidelines suggest few circumstances in which FFP transfusion to critically ill patients is warranted. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the consistency of Canadian guidelines for FFP administration to critically ill patients and to examine factors associated with inappropriate FFP transfusions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 15-bed medical surgical intensive care unit in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 254 consecutive adults admitted during 1 yr expected to stay in intensive care for more than 72 hrs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient demographics, illness severity, life support, intensive care and hospital length of stay, and survival were prospectively collected. All FFP orders were identified from the hospital laboratory information system. For each order, coagulation parameters, planned invasive interventions, recent or current bleeding, and bleeding severity were retrospectively collected. Three observers independently adjudicated whether transfusions were consistent with guidelines, inconsistent but appropriate for the intensive care context, or inappropriate. Of 254 patients, 76 (29.9%) received FFP, accounting for 225 orders to transfuse 547 units. Of 225 orders, 73 (32.4%) were consistent with guidelines, 45 (20.0%) were inconsistent but appropriate, and 107 (47.6%) were inappropriate. Considering transfusions clustered within patients, chance-independent agreement on whether transfusions were inappropriate or not was high (phi 0.73, 0.64-0.81). Independent determinants of inappropriate FFP were the presence of less severe coagulopathy as indicated by lower international normalized ratios (p < .0001) and the absence of bleeding (p < .0001) of planned invasive procedure (p = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients frequently receive inappropriate FFP transfusions. Many transfusions may be appropriate for the intensive care setting, although they are inconsistent with expert recommendations, highlighting that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of FFP transfusion in critical illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207