Temperature management and monitoring practices during adult cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass: results of a Canadian national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild to moderate systemic hypothermia is commonly used as a cerebral protective strategy during adult cardiac surgery. The benefits of this strategy for routine cardiac surgery have been questioned and the adverse effects of hyperthermia demonstrated. The purpose of the present study was to examine current temperature management and monitoring practices during adult cardiac surgery using CPB in Canada. METHODS: Web-based survey referring to adult cases undergoing cardiac surgery using CPB without the use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Thirty-two questionnaires were completed, representing a 100% response rate. RESULTS: The usual management is to cool patients during CPB at 30 (94%) centers for low-risk (isolated primary CABG) cases and at 31 (97%) centers for high-risk (all other) cases. The average nadir temperature at the target site achieved on CPB is 34°C (range 28°C - 36°C). At 26 (81%) centers, patients are typically rewarmed to a target temperature between 36°C and 37°C before separation from CPB. Only 6 (19%) centers reported that thermistors and coupled devices used to monitor blood temperature are checked for accuracy or calibrated according to the product operating directive's schedule or more often. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary management of adult cardiac surgery under CPB still involves induction of mild to moderate systemic hypothermia. Significant practice variation exists across the country with respect to target temperatures for cooling and rewarming, as well as the site for temperature monitoring. This probably reflects the lack of definitive evidence. There is a need for well-conducted clinical trials to provide more robust evidence regarding temperature management.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".