MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regional citrate anticoagulation in <scp>CVVH</scp>: A new protocol combining citrate solution with a phosphate‐containing replacement fluid

2012· article· en· W2508100350 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santo Morabito, Valentina Pistolesi, Luigi Tritapepe, Laura Zeppilli, Francesca Polistena, Enrico Fiaccadori, Alessandro Pierucci

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicarbonateMedicineSodium bicarbonateRenal replacement therapySodium citrateAcid–base homeostasisAcidosisMetabolic acidosisPhosphateBase excessAcid–base imbalanceChemistryAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) is a valid anticoagulation method in continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT) and different combination of citrate and CRRT solutions can affect acid-base balance. Regardless of the anticoagulation protocol, hypophosphatemia occurs frequently in CRRT. In this case report, we evaluated safety and effects on acid-base balance of a new RCA- continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) protocol using an 18 mmol/L citrate solution combined with a phosphate-containing replacement fluid. In our center, RCA-CVVH is routinely performed with a 12 mmol/L citrate solution and a postdilution replacement fluid with bicarbonate (protocol A). In case of persistent acidosis, not related to citrate accumulation, bicarbonate infusion is scheduled. In order to optimize buffers balance, a new protocol has been designed using recently introduced solutions: 18 mmol/L citrate solution, phosphate-containing postdilution replacement fluid with bicarbonate (protocol B). In a cardiac surgery patient with acute kidney injury, acid-base status and electrolytes have been evaluated comparing protocol A (five circuits, 301 hours) vs. protocol B (two circuits, 97 hours): pH 7.39 ± 0.03 vs. 7.44 ± 0.03 (P < 0.0001), bicarbonate 22.3 ± 1.8 vs. 22.6 ± 1.4 mmol/L (NS), Base excess -2.8 ± 2.1 vs. -1.6 ± 1.2 (P = 0.007), phosphate 0.85 ± 0.2 vs. 1.3 ± 0.5 mmol/L (P = 0.027). Protocol A required bicarbonate and sodium phosphate infusion (8.9 ± 2.8 mmol/h and 5 g/day, respectively) while protocol B allowed to stop both supplementations. In comparison to protocol A, protocol B allowed to adequately control acid-base status without additional bicarbonate infusion and in absence of alkalosis, despite the use of a standard bicarbonate concentration replacement solution. Furthermore, the combination of a phosphate-containing replacement fluid appeared effective to prevent hypophosphatemia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207