High-Dose Tranexamic Acid Is Associated with Nonischemic Clinical Seizures in Cardiac Surgical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2 separate centers, we observed a notable increase in the incidence of postoperative convulsive seizures from 1.3% to 3.8% in patients having undergone major cardiac surgical procedures. These events were temporally coincident with the initial use of high-dose tranexamic acid (TXA) therapy after withdrawal of aprotinin from general clinical usage. The purpose of this review was to perform a retrospective analysis to examine whether there was a relation between TXA usage and seizures after cardiac surgery. METHODS: An in-depth chart review was undertaken in all 24 patients who developed perioperative seizures. Electroencephalographic activity was recorded in 11 of these patients, and all patients had a formal neurological evaluation and brain imaging studies. RESULTS: Twenty-one of the 24 patients did not have evidence of new cerebral ischemic injury, but seizures were likely due to ischemic brain injury in 3 patients. All patients with seizures did not have permanent neurological abnormalities. All 24 patients with seizures received high doses of TXA intraoperatively ranging from 61 to 259 mg/kg, had a mean age of 69.9 years, and 21 of 24 had undergone open chamber rather than coronary bypass procedures. All but one patient were managed using cardiopulmonary bypass. No evidence of brain ischemic, metabolic, or hyperthermia-induced causes for their seizures was apparent. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that use of high-dose TXA in older patients in conjunction with cardiopulmonary bypass and open-chamber cardiac surgery is associated with clinical seizures in susceptible patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".