Contemporary Risk Factors and Outcomes of Transfusion-Associated Circulatory Overload*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Transfusion-associated circulatory overload is characterized by hydrostatic pulmonary edema following blood transfusion. Restrictive transfusion practice may affect the occurrence and severity of transfusion-associated circulatory overload in critically ill patients. We sought to examine contemporary risk factors and outcomes for transfusion-associated circulatory overload. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Four tertiary care hospitals. PATIENTS: We prospectively enrolled 200 patients with transfusion-associated circulatory overload identified by active surveillance and 405 controls matched by transfusion intensity. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 20,845 transfused patients who received 128,263 blood components from May 2015 until July 2016, transfusion-associated circulatory overload incidence was one case per 100 transfused patients. In addition to cardiovascular comorbidities, multivariable analysis identified the following independent predictors of transfusion-associated circulatory overload: acute kidney injury, emergency surgery, pretransfusion diuretic use, and plasma transfusion-the latter especially in females. Compared with matched controls, transfusion-associated circulatory overload cases were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (71% vs 49%; p < 0.001), experienced longer intensive care and hospital lengths of stay following transfusion, and had higher mortality (21% vs 11%; p = 0.02) even after adjustment for other potentially confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Despite restrictive transfusion practice, transfusion-associated circulatory overload remains a frequent complication of transfusion and is an independent risk factor for in-hospital morbidity and mortality. In addition to cardiovascular and renal risk factors, plasma transfusion was associated with transfusion-associated circulatory overload after controlling for other covariates. Additional research is needed to examine the benefit of reduced erythrocyte or plasma exposure in patients at high risk for transfusion-associated circulatory overload.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".