MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

RAP Trial: Ringer's Lactate and Packed Red Blood Cell Transfusion, An in Vitro Study and Chart Review.

2009· article· en· W2583012624 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren Bolster, Mark Bosch, Brian Brownbridge, Anurag Saxena

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePacked red blood cellsCoagulopathyAnesthesiaRed blood cellWhole bloodSalineBlood transfusionSurgeryRed CellFresh frozen plasmaPlateletInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2105 Poster Board II-82 Background: The Canadian Blood Services and the American Association of Blood Banks state that intravenous solution administered with packed red blood cells (pRBC) must be isotonic and must not contain calcium or glucose. This recommendation is based on in vitro investigations demonstrating that calcium containing solutions can initiate in vitro coagulation in citrated blood (Ryden 1975, Dickson 1980, Lorenzo 1998). Recently this recommendation has been challenged by in vitro studies that combined AS-3 pRBC with Ringer's Lactate (RL) (Albert 2009). Currently there are anaesthetists that use RL with pRBC for intra-operative transfusions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether RL, as compared with normal saline (NS), can safely be used in transfusion therapy. Methods: Eleven units of AS-3 pRBC were obtained for this study. In part A, multiple dilutions of blood with RL or NS were assessed for clot, both visually using a 20 micron filter and molecularly using F1+2 ELISA. In part B, blood was run through a standard gravity filter with NS or RL, to simulate both ward and intra-operative transfusion practice. The blood was then assessed for clot at times 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. In part C, patients who received intra-operative transfusions of pRBC with RL were identified. These charts were reviewed for evidence of transfusion reactions including: TRALI, arterial or venous thrombosis, coagulopathy and mortality. Results: In part A, none of the filters had evidence of visible clot, nor evidence of thrombin generation at supraphysiologic levels, >300 pmol/L (Ota 2008, Pelzer 1991). In part B, there was no visible evidence of clot at the preselected time points. Over four hours the NS + blood group F1+2 levels ranged from 12- 267 pmol/L, and the RL + blood F1+2 levels ranged from 14-218 pmol/L. In the transfusion set primed with blood and then RL added, a simulation of common operating room transfusion practice, the F1+2 ELISA levels ranged from 13-435 pmol/L. There were no statistically significant difference in the ELISA F1+2 between the NS and RL groups (NS + blood vs. RL + blood p= 0.547, NS + blood vs. blood +RL p= 0.663). Nine patients totaling 36 units of pRBC transfused with RL were reviewed. The transfusion times ranging from 15-95 minutes, with an average transfusion time of 30 minutes per unit of pRBC. There was no evidence of transfusion related adverse events identified. Discussion: In addition to our results confirming recent studies that demonstrate in vitro compatibility of pRBC with RL, our study is the first comprehensive study involving visual clot, molecular clot and intra-operative transfusion of pRBC with RL. We have utilized a 20 micron filter, whereas previous studies utilized 40 micron filters. Further, in contrast to other studies we are the first to investigate the effects of both the concentration of RL with blood and the transfusion duration; no other study has looked at four hour transfusions with RL. Conclusion: Our study adds credibility to the hypothesis that RL is safe for clinical transfusion, including intra-operative and ward transfusion practice. Although new evidence now challenges international transfusion guidelines, a larger study should be conducted before transfusion with RL is adopted into widespread clinical practice. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood transfusion and management→French-language works237,207→