Are we doing everything we can to conserve blood during bypass? A national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite major advances in biomaterial research and blood conservation, bleeding is still a common complication after cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiac surgery remains a major consumer of blood products. Although the underlying mechanisms for these effects are not fully established, two proposed major etiologies are the hemodilution associated with the use of the heart-lung machine and the impact of reinfusion of shed cardiotomy blood. Therapeutic strategies that primarily encompass the use of devices or technologies to overcome these effects may result in improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which 1) lipid/leukocyte filtration and centrifugal processing of cardiotomy blood, and 2) modified ultrafiltration (MUF) are currently applied in adult cardiac surgery in Canada. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to the chief perfusionist at all adult cardiac surgical centers in Canada, addressing details regarding the frequency of use of cardiotomy blood processing and MUF. RESULTS: All questionnaires (36, 100%) were completed and returned. With regards to cardiotomy blood management, in 21 centers (58%), no specific processing steps were utilized exclusive of the integrated cardiotomy reservoir filter. Of the remaining centers, two (6%) reported using lipid/leukocyte filtration and 15 (42%) reported washing their cardiotomy blood. Three centers (8%) reported using MUF at the end of CPB. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing concern about the potential detrimental effects of cardiotomy blood, few centers in Canada routinely manage this blood with additional filtration and/or centrifugal processing prior to reinfusion. Similarly, MUF, demonstrated to be effective in the pediatric population, has not seen popular application in adult cardiac surgical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".