Utilization of frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, and recombinant factor VIIa for children with hemostatic impairments: An audit of transfusion appropriateness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions and fractionated products are not without risk and may lead to acute and long-term adverse events. The objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of usage of frozen plasma (FP), cryoprecipitate (CRYO), and recombinant factor VIIa (rVIIa) in a pediatric setting. METHODS: All orders for FP, CRYO, and rVIIa were prospectively audited over 6 weeks. Data collected included demographics, laboratory values, indication, and adverse reactions. The appropriateness of each order was independently evaluated using adjudication criteria rated by two hematologists. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five products were ordered; 67% of the orders were issued to operating rooms or intensive care units. The most common indication for all products was cardiac surgery. FP was ordered as fluid replacement (15/215; 7%) to correct abnormal coagulation tests (23/215; 11%) and for patients with minor or no bleeding (111/242; 46%). FP was more likely to alter the international normalized ratio (INR) if the INR was over 2.0 (P < 0.0001). The rate of inappropriate products was judged as FP 19%, CRYO 21%, and rVIIa 91%. CONCLUSION: FP, CRYO, and rVIIa are most commonly used in the operating room and intensive care units. FP was often used for fluid resuscitation and for patients with mild to no bleeding. FP was only effective in lowering the INR when the INR was over 2.0. Use of rVIIa was rarely ordered for an appropriate indication. Results of this study inform its readers where trials of pediatric transfusion should be performed to clarify how these products should be used in clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".