The Use of Aprotinin in Pediatric Patients: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review includes all reports from 1993 to 2000 concerning the use of aprotinin in children undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for congenital cardiac surgery. This review examined a nonhomogeneous pediatric patient population ranging from neonates to children up to 18 years of age, presenting many challenges. There have been publications advocating its use and those that have found no significant difference between the control group and those receiving aprotinin. The literature suggests that there is improvement in post-operative blood loss in pediatric patients undergoing redo cardiac surgery, but no significant difference in blood loss in those undergoing primary surgical repair. There is some evidence in the neonatal study groups that with high-dose aprotinin the inflammatory response is attenuated, leading to a reduction in inotropic support, earlier extubation, a tendency toward reduced post-operative blood loss and a reduced hospital stay. In most of the studies, the actual dose of aprotinin has varied with "high-dose aprotinin" demonstrating the most significant differences. To achieve an adequate dose of aprotinin, the dose must be calculated on either the patient's weight or their body surface area, and must include an appropriate dose in the prime of the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit, to achieve a plasma concentration between 200 KIU/mL to 400 KIU/mL. The incidence of anaphylactic reactions reported in the literature range from 0.3 to 0.6%. To date, there is no evidence to indicate any contraindication related to the use of aprotinin in the pediatric population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".