VP189 Hemolysis Induced By Modern Infusion Pumps During Blood Transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Following a first field evaluation conducted in 2013, we found that hemolysis can be induced by infusion pumps during blood transfusion. Actually, limited data is available on the risk of hemolysis associated with the most used infusion pumps in Quebec hospitals: InfusomatSpace (peristaltic), Plum A+TM (piston) and ColleagueCXE (shuttle). METHODS: Staff from the blood bank and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) unit in our hospital collaborated in 2016 to assess the hemolysis and potassium level (that is, a blood test sensitive to hemolysis) induced by the use of the three infusion pumps mentioned above. Measurements were taken for each pump at five flow rates, from 30 to 450 ml/hour, and were compared with measurements taken before using the pumps. Tests were conducted with 135 red blood cell (RBC) units. RBC units were aged from 10 to 28 days. RESULTS: The shuttle- and piston-type pumps resulted in low hemolysis levels. The peristaltic-type pump produced significantly more hemolysis. However, the absolute value of hemolysis remained within the range recommended by the regulatory agencies in North America and Europe. Potassium levels did not increase with the use of the pumps. CONCLUSIONS: The collaboration between the blood bank and the HTA unit led to the conclusion that modern infusion pumps widely used in Quebec hospitals produce non-threatening levels of hemolysis during blood transfusion. This finding is important to ensure safe practices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".