MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Point-of-Care Hemostatic Testing in Cardiac Surgery

2016· article· en· W2521157042 on OpenAlexafffund
Keyvan Karkouti, Jeannie Callum, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Vivek Rao, Mark Crowther, Hilary P. Grocott, Ruxandra Pinto, Damon C. Scales, Blaine Achen, Samrath Singh Brar, Douglas E. Morrison, Daniel Wong, Jean S. Bussières, T. de Waal, Christopher Harle, Étienne de Médicis, Charles McAdams, Shorabuddin Syed, Diem Tran, Terry Waters

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of OttawaHamilton Health SciencesHôpital FleurimontLondon Health Sciences CentreAlberta Health ServicesSouthlake Regional Health CenterRoyal Columbian HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Alberta HospitalMcMaster UniversityToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCryoprecipitateBlood transfusionBlood managementSurgeryHemostasisContext (archaeology)Cardiac surgeryFresh frozen plasmaPoint-of-care testingRandomizationCardiopulmonary bypassClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineAnesthesiaPlateletInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery is frequently complicated by coagulopathic bleeding that is difficult to optimally manage using standard hemostatic testing. We hypothesized that point-of-care hemostatic testing within the context of an integrated transfusion algorithm would improve the management of coagulopathy in cardiac surgery and thereby reduce blood transfusions. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial of a point-of-care-based transfusion algorithm in consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at 12 hospitals from October 6, 2014, to May 1, 2015. Following a 1-month data collection at all participating hospitals, a transfusion algorithm incorporating point-of-care hemostatic testing was sequentially implemented at 2 hospitals at a time in 1-month intervals, with the implementation order randomly assigned. No other aspects of care were modified. The primary outcome was red blood cell transfusion from surgery to postoperative day 7. Other outcomes included transfusion of other blood products, major bleeding, and major complications. The analysis adjusted for secular time trends, within-hospital clustering, and patient-level risk factors. All outcomes and analyses were prespecified before study initiation. RESULTS: Among the 7402 patients studied, 3555 underwent surgery during the control phase and 3847 during the intervention phase. Overall, 3329 (45.0%) received red blood cells, 1863 (25.2%) received platelets, 1645 (22.2%) received plasma, and 394 (5.3%) received cryoprecipitate. Major bleeding occurred in 1773 (24.1%) patients, and major complications occurred in 740 (10.2%) patients. The trial intervention reduced rates of red blood cell transfusion (adjusted relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.98; P=0.02; number needed to treat, 24.7), platelet transfusion (relative risk, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.87; P<0.001; number needed to treat, 16.7), and major bleeding (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004; number needed to treat, 22.6), but had no effect on other blood product transfusions or major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of point-of-care hemostatic testing within the context of an integrated transfusion algorithm reduces red blood cell transfusions, platelet transfusions, and major bleeding following cardiac surgery. Our findings support the broader adoption of point-of-care hemostatic testing into clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02200419.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations313
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207