The influence of baseline hemoglobin concentration on tolerance of anemia in cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current red blood cell (RBC) transfusion guidelines assume that most acutely anemic patients can tolerate hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations as low as 6.0 to 7.0 g per dL and recommend that range as the transfusion threshold in patients who have no overt signs of organ dysfunction. Nonetheless, "normal" Hb concentrations vary widely in the population, and this variability may influence patients' tolerance of acute anemia. This retrospective cohort study was carried out to test this hypothesis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were analyzed on 10,179 consecutive patients who had normal Hb concentrations (12.0-16.0 g/dL in women and 13.0-18.0 g/dL in men) and underwent on-pump cardiac surgery from 1999 to 2006 at an academic hospital. The relationships of lowest intraoperative Hb concentration and maximum decrease in Hb concentration (from baseline) with the composite outcome of in-hospital death, stroke, or kidney failure were determined in various patient subgroups. RESULTS: The relationship between lowest Hb concentration and adverse outcomes was not independently associated with increased risk. In contrast, the relationship between maximum decrease in Hb concentration and adverse outcomes was independently associated with increased risk, with a 50 percent decrease being the threshold beyond which risk was increased (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.08; p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The degree of acute anemia that patients can safely tolerate during cardiac surgery is inversely related to their baseline Hb concentration. Current transfusion guidelines do not account for this relationship.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".