Distribution of normal saline and 5% albumin infusions in cardiac surgical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative distribution of fluid within the extracellular fluid volume (ECFV) and the effect on oxygen delivery after infusing either normal saline or 5% albumin in cardiac surgical patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, unblinded, interventional study. SETTING: Cardiac surgical intensive care unit in a 450-bed teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Postoperative cardiac surgical patients (n = 40). INTERVENTIONS: Infusion of either normal saline or 5% albumin to a hemodynamic end point determined by the patient's clinician. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Plasma volume (PV), ECFV, cardiac index, and arterial oxygen content were measured immediately before (baseline) and after each fluid infusion. PV and ECFV were measured by dilution of (131)I-albumin and [(35)S]sodium sulfate, respectively. Interstitial fluid volume (ISFV) was calculated as ECFV - PV. Baseline values for PV, ISFV, ECFV, and oxygen delivery index did not differ between treatment groups. Infusion of normal saline and 5% albumin increased PV by 9 +/- 23% and 52 +/- 84% of the volume infused, respectively (p <.05), whereas there was no significant difference between saline and albumin in the change in ISFV per volume infused. Only 5% albumin significantly increased cardiac index, although oxygen delivery did not change significantly after either infusion. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative cardiac surgical patients, infusion of 5% albumin is approximately five times as efficient as a PV expander but has comparable effects on changes in ISFV and oxygen delivery relative to normal saline.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".