MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transfusion Trigger Trial for Functional Outcomes in Cardiovascular Patients Undergoing Surgical Hip Fracture Repair (FOCUS): The Principal Results

2009· article· en· W2566969303 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey L. Carson, Michael L. Terrin, Jay Magaziner, David Sanders, Donald Richard Cook, Kevin A. Hildebrand

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood transfusionAnemiaDiabetes mellitusAdverse effectHemoglobinSurgeryCoronary artery diseaseDiseaseHip fractureRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract LBA-6 Introduction: Red blood cell transfusion is commonly administered after surgery. It has been suggested that patients with underlying cardiovascular disease are especially vulnerable to anemia and may benefit from transfusion to higher hemoglobin levels. However, red blood cell transfusion is costly and associated with uncommon but clinically important adverse effects. Thus, the indications for red blood cell transfusion are controversial. The aim of this NHLBI-sponsored randomized clinical trial was to determine whether higher blood transfusion thresholds improve functional recovery and reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Patients and Methods: We enrolled patients who were 50 years of age or older, underwent surgery for hip fracture, had a history of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and had postoperative hemoglobin < 10 g/dL. We randomly allocated patients to a transfusion threshold of 10 g/dL, or to receive transfusion when anemia symptoms occurred; transfusion was permitted if hemoglobin was < 8 /g dL. The primary outcome was death or the inability to walk across a room without human assistance at 60-Day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 60-Day follow-up mortality, fatigue, falls, readmission to the hospital, and function. Results: We enrolled 2016 patients from 47 medical centers in North America. The age of the subjects varied from 51-103; mean age was 81.6 and 24% were male. 82% had hypertension, 40% had coronary artery disease, 25% had diabetes mellitus and 18% had history of cancer. The mean hemoglobin concentration prior to randomization was 9.0 g/dL (standard deviation +/‐ 0.8). The hemoglobin concentration prior to transfusion in 10 /g dL group was 9.2 g/dL (standard deviation +/‐ 0.5) and in symptomatic group 7.9 g/dL (standard deviation +/‐ 0.5). 10g/dL arm was transfused median 2 units (interquartile range 1,2), while the symptomatic group was transfused median 0 units (interquartile range 0,1). In the 10 g/dL group 35% (40% men, 33% women) were dead or unable to walk without human assistance and for symptomatic group 35% (32% men, 35% women); odds ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.23; difference = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval = -3.6 to 4.8%. In the 10 g/dL group 7.6% were dead on 60-Day follow-up and for symptomatic group 6.5%; odds ratio = 1.19, 99% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.86; difference = 1.1%, 99% confidence interval = -1.8 to 4.1%. The frequency of readmission to the hospital, falls, and the fatigue score were similar between the transfusion groups. Conclusions: Symptomatic transfusion conserved blood and had no adverse effects on ability to walk, 60-Day follow-up mortality, falls, readmission rates, or fatigue in this high-risk group of elderly patients with underlying cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Disclosures: Magaziner: Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207