Is Blood Superior to Crystalloid Cardioplegia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many small, randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness of blood as compared with crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection during cardiac surgery. Blood cardioplegia provides a closer approximation to normal physiology, which may translate into measurable clinical benefits. This meta-analysis describes the effectiveness of blood cardioplegia in lowering adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane registry of controlled trials were searched for clinical trials. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed English language publications of randomized controlled trials that primarily compared blood and crystalloid cardioplegia in adult patients. Each trial was blindly assessed and abstracted by 2 reviewers. The primary outcomes were: low output syndrome (LOS), myocardial infarction (MI), and death. Surrogate outcomes included postoperative creatinine kinase MB (CKMB) increase. Random effects summary odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes, and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes were calculated. A total of 34 trials were included. The majority of trials were conducted in patients undergoing elective CABG surgery (n=18). The incidence of LOS was decreased significantly with blood cardioplegia (OR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.84; P=0.006; 879 patients, 10 trials). The incidence of MI and death were similar between treatment groups (MI: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.13; 4316 patients, 23 trials) (death: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.40; 4022 patients, 17 trials). CKMB release after surgery at 24 hours was reduced with blood cardioplegia (5.9 U/L; 95% CI, 1.6 to 10.2; P=0.007; 821 patients, 7 trials). CONCLUSIONS: Blood cardioplegia provides superior myocardial protection as compared with crystalloid cardioplegia, including lower rates of LOS, and early CKMB increase, whereas the incidence of myocardial infarction and death are similar.
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 | 0.025 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".