Antimicrobial Therapy in Patients with Acute Variceal Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute variceal hemorrhage is a serious complication of liver disease and hospital outcome is closely related to infection. Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk for developing bacterial infection, which is associated with failure to control bleeding and higher rates of hospital mortality. Many clinical practice guidelines endorse antimicrobial prophylaxis as standard of care for cirrhotic patients. OBJECTIVE: The present study was performed to characterize the use of antimicrobial therapy for patients hospitalized with acute variceal hemorrhage. METHODS: Medical records of 98 patients hospitalized with suspected variceal hemorrhage were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: One-half of the patients received antimicrobials at any time during their hospital admission, and in very few (24%) could prescribed therapy be considered prophylactic. Seventy-seven per cent of patients undergoing endoscopy did not receive an antimicrobial within 24 h of the procedure. Those who received antimicrobial therapy had more severe liver disease (model for end-stage liver disease scores of 19.5 +/- 10 versus 12.9 +/- 8, P< 0.05; Child-Pugh class C 78% versus 65%, not significant) and worse in-hospital outcome (length of stay 17 versus 6.5 days, P<0.05; mortality 15 versus two, P< 0.05). Cephalosporins were the most widely prescribed agents (45%), followed by fluoroquinolone (40%). Regimens ranged in length from single-dose administration to two weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with liver disease admitted with variceal hemorrhage were often not prescribed antimicrobial therapy to reduce the risk of bacterial infection. These results imply that published practice guidelines are not being consistently observed. A large, well-designed study with mortality outcome may be required for clinical guidelines to be successfully implemented in practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".