Pressure Infusion Cuff and Blood Warmer during Massive Transfusion: An Experimental Study About Hemolysis and Hypothermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood warmers were developed to reduce the risk of hypothermia associated with the infusion of cold blood products. During massive transfusion, these devices are used with compression sleeve, which induce a major stress to red blood cells. In this setting, the combination of blood warmer and compression sleeve could generate hemolysis and harm the patient. We conducted this study to compare the impact of different pressure rates on the hemolysis of packed red blood cells and on the outlet temperature when a blood warmer set at 41.5°C is used. METHODS: Pressure rates tested were 150 and 300 mmHg. Ten packed red blood cells units were provided by Héma-Québec and each unit was sequentially tested. RESULTS: We found no increase in hemolysis either at 150 or 300 mmHg. By cons, we found that the blood warmer was not effective at warming the red blood cells at the specified temperature. At 150 mmHg, the outlet temperature reached 37.1°C and at 300 mmHg, the temperature was 33.7°C. CONCLUSION: To use a blood warmer set at 41.5°C in conjunction with a compression sleeve at 150 or 300 mmHg does not generate hemolysis. At 300 mmHg a blood warmer set at 41.5°C does not totally avoid a risk of hypothermia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".