MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051067837 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000000548

Transfusion Triggers for Guiding RBC Transfusion for Cardiovascular Surgery

2014· review· en· W2051067837 on OpenAlexafffund
Gerard F. Curley, Nadine Shehata, C. David Mazer, Gregory M. T. Hare, Jan O. Friedrich

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHematocritPerioperativeRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectBlood transfusionMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)Meta-analysisRelative riskInternal medicineAnemiaSurgeryIntensive care medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Restrictive red cell transfusion is recommended to minimize risk associated with exposure to allogeneic blood. However, perioperative anemia is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes after cardiovascular surgery. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether perioperative restrictive transfusion thresholds are associated with inferior clinical outcomes in randomized trials of cardiovascular surgery patients. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to October 2013; reference lists of published guidelines, reviews, and associated articles, as well as conference proceedings. No language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: We included controlled trials in which adult patients undergoing cardiac or vascular surgery were randomized to different transfusion thresholds, described as a hemoglobin or hematocrit level below which RBCs were transfused. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from included trials. We pooled risk ratios of dichotomous outcomes and mean differences of continuous outcomes across trials using random-effects models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven studies (enrolling 1,262 participants) met inclusion criteria with restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds most commonly differing by a hemoglobin of 1 g/dL or hematocrit of 6-7%, resulting in decreased transfusions by 0.71 units of RBCs (95% CI, 0.31-1.09, p = 0.0002) without an associated change in adverse events: mortality (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65-1.95; p = 0.60), myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30-2.99; p = 0.92), stroke (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.57-2.32; p = 0.70), acute renal failure (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.64-1.49; p = 0.91), infections (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.85-1.78; p = 0.27), or length of stay. There was no between-trial heterogeneity for any pooled analysis. Including four pediatric trials (456 participants) and 10 trials utilizing only intraoperative acute normovolemic hemodilution (872 participants) did not substantially change the results except that unlike the transfusion threshold trials, the hemodilution trials did not reduce the proportion of patients transfused (interaction p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to determine the optimal transfusion strategy for patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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