Sternotomy or drainage for a hemopericardium after penetrating trauma: a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if stable patients with a hemopericardium detected after penetrating chest trauma can be safely managed with pericardial drainage alone. BACKGROUND: The current international practice is to perform a sternotomy and cardiac repair if a hemopericardium is detected after penetrating chest trauma. The experience in Cape Town, South Africa, on performing a mandatory sternotomy in hemodynamically stable patients was that a sternotomy was unnecessary and the cardiac injury, if present, had sealed. METHODS: A single-center parallel-group randomized controlled study was completed. All hemodynamically stable patients with a hemopericardium confirmed at subxiphoid pericardial window (SPW), and no active bleeding, were randomized. The primary outcome measure was survival to discharge from hospital. Secondary outcomes were complications and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were randomized to sternotomy and 56 to pericardial drainage and wash-out only. Fifty-one of the 55 patients (93%) randomized to sternotomy had either no cardiac injury or a tangential injury. There were only 4 patients with penetrating wounds to the endocardium and all had sealed. There was 1 death postoperatively among the 111 patients (0.9%) and this was in the sternotomy group. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay for a sternotomy was 2.04 days (range, 0-25 days) compared with 0.25 days (range, 0-2) for the drainage (P < 0.001). The estimated mean difference highlighted a stay of 1.8 days shorter in the ICU for the drainage group (95% CI: 0.8-2.7). Total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SPW group (P < 0.001; 95% CI: 1.4-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: SPW and drainage is effective and safe in the stable patient with a hemopericardium after penetrating chest trauma, with no increase in mortality and a shorter ICU and hospital stay. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00823160).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".