Are any biocompatible coatings capable of attenuating the deleterious effects of cardiopulmonary bypass?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biocompatible circuits (BCC) are intended to decrease the activation of blood to the artificial cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surface. Typically, the coatings are made of various inert substances or molecules physiologically similar to endothelium. Thromboelastography (TEG) graphically represents clot formation, strength of clotting and fibrinolysis. TEG analysis was undertaken to determine if coagulation could be preserved by the BCC. METHODS: Five different BCC were studied in clinical applications. These five coated circuits were then compared to an identical circuit where only the oxygenator was coated. A pre- and post-bypass TEG was done for comparison. Six well-studied parameters of TEG analysis were compared: R time, angle, K, maximum amplitude (MA), LY30% and Clot Index (CI). Postoperative bleeding and transfusion requirements were compared to TEG results for comparison. RESULTS: All postoperative TEG results were significantly different from preoperative parameters except LY30%. No BCC circuit was able to prevent the significant disruption of the observed TEG coagulation parameters R, K, angle, MA and CI. Of note, the postoperative TEG parameters resulting from the Control and Trillium groups--which had the same type of oxygenator - were practically identical. The oxygenator, which represents the largest surface area in the CPB circuit, is the single most important factor influencing coagulation. CONCLUSION: While not harmful, BCC are ineffective in preserving TEG coagulation parameters post CPB. Clinical findings support laboratory TEG results in that there were no differences in bleeding or transfusion requirements between groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".