Fluids after cardiac surgery: A pilot study of the use of colloids versus crystalloids*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a starch solution for volume resuscitation in a flow-based protocol improves circulatory status better than a crystalloid solution, as defined by the need for catecholamines in patients the morning after cardiac surgery, and whether this can be performed without increased morbidity. DESIGN: Concealed, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred sixty-two patients who underwent cardiac surgery at a tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Based on predefined criteria indicating a need for fluids, and a nurse-delivered algorithm that used central venous pressure and cardiac index obtained from a pulmonary artery catheter, patients were allocated to receive 250-mL boluses of 0.9% saline or a 250-molecular weight 10% solution of pentastarch. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients received volume boluses: 119 hydroxyethyl starches and 118 saline. Between 8:00 am and 9:00 am the morning after surgery, 13 (10.9%) of hydroxyethyl starch patients and 34 (28.8%) saline patients were using catecholamines (p = .001). Hydroxyethyl starch patients had less pneumonia and mediastinal infections (p = .03) and less cardiac pacing (p = .03). There were two deaths in each group. There was no difference in the daily creatinine, development of RIFLE risk criteria during hospital stay, or new dialysis. The numbers and volumes of packed red blood cells were similar in the two groups, but more hydroxyethyl starch patients received plasma transfusions (p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a colloid solution for volume resuscitation in a nurse-delivered flow-based algorithm, which included a pulmonary artery catheter, significantly improved hemodynamic status, an important factor for readiness for discharge from the intensive care unit.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".