Can local application of Tranexamic acid reduce post-coronary bypass surgery blood loss? A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffuse microvascular bleeding remains a common problem after cardiac procedures. Systemic use of antifibrinolytic reduces the postoperative blood loss. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of local application of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Thirty eight patients scheduled for primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting were included in this double blind, prospective, randomized, placebo controlled study. Tranexamic acid (TA) group (19 patients) received 1 gram of TA diluted in 100 ml normal saline. Placebo group (19 patients) received 100 ml of normal saline only. The solution was purred in the pericardial and mediastinal cavities. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in their baseline demographic and surgical characteristics. During the first 24 hours post-operatively, cumulative blood loss was significantly less in TA group (median of 626 ml) compared to Placebo group (median of 1040 ml) (P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the post-op Packed RBCs transfusion between both groups (median of one unit in each) (P = 0.82). Significant less platelets transfusion required in TA group (median zero unit) than in placebo group (median 2 units) (P = 0.03). Apart from re-exploration for excessive surgical bleeding in one patient in TA group, no difference was found in morbidity or mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: Topical application of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing primary coronary artery bypass grafting led to a significant reduction in postoperative blood loss without adding extra risk to the patient.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".