Quantitative assessment of haemolysis secondary to modern infusion pumps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although most studies have shown that little haemolysis is induced by infusion pumps, there are some notable exceptions. Only limited data are available on the actual infusion pumps that are most used in hospitals in Quebec and elsewhere, namely, the Infusomat® Space (peristaltic), Plum A+™ (piston) and Colleague® CXE (shuttle) pumps. Methods Haemolysis and potassium levels were compared before and after the use of the three different infusion pumps. Using 135 units of packed red blood cells (RBCs) aged from 10 to 28 days, 27 measurements were taken for each pump at various flow rates (30, 60, 150, 300 and 450 ml/h) and were compared with measurements taken before using the pumps. The range of flow rates was chosen to cover those of paediatric and adult transfusions. Results The shuttle‐ and piston‐type pumps resulted in low haemolysis levels. The peristaltic‐type pump produced significantly more haemolysis, which worsened at low flow rates, but the absolute value of haemolysis remained within the range recommended by the regulatory agencies in North America and Europe. Approximately two‐thirds of the haemolysis produced by the peristaltic‐type pump seemed to be secondary to the use of an antisiphon valve (ASV) on the transfusion line recommended by the manufacturer. Potassium levels did not increase with the use of the pumps. Conclusion Modern infusion pumps widely used in hospitals in Quebec and elsewhere produce non‐threatening levels of haemolysis during the transfusion of packed RBCs aged from 10 to 28 days. ASVs appear to induce additional haemolysis, and we do not recommend using them for blood transfusion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".