Blood loss and transfusion rates associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Recommendations for patients who refuse blood transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is less invasive than surgical aortic valve replacement and may be preferred for patients who refuse blood transfusions. OBJECTIVES: Our study sought to define transfusion rates in TAVR, identify predictors and develop recommendations for patients who refuse transfusions. METHODS: A large cohort of consecutive patients undergoing TAVR was prospectively studied. Blood loss and transfusion rates were observed in patients undergoing transfemoral (TF-TAVR) and transapical TAVR (TA-TAVR). Predictors for transfusion were investigated in a multivariate model. RESULTS: Of 373 consecutive patients, 270 underwent TF-TAVR and 103 TA-TAVR. Transfusion rates were significantly lower in TF-TAVR than TA-TAVR (11.1 vs 41.7%; P < 0.001). In patients who did not receive transfusions, blood loss was significantly lower in TF-TAVR than TA-TAVR (23.6 ± 12.2 g/l vs 28.9 ± 13.7 g/l; P = 0.004), but did not differ in transfused patients (36.9 ± 12.9 g/l vs 33.4 ± 21.2 g/l; P = 0.428). Predictors for transfusions were low baseline hemoglobin, female sex, low body weight and decreased renal function. In seven Jehovah's Witness patients, who refused transfusions, no vascular complications occurred and clinical outcome was excellent. CONCLUSION: In patients, who refuse transfusions, TAVR may be performed with good clinical outcomes provided a high baseline hemoglobin level, careful management of the access site and strict measurements to reduce blood loss. TF-TAVR is associated with less blood loss and a lower rate of transfusions than TA-TAVR, and may be the preferred option for patients, who refuse transfusions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".