Albumin 5% Versus Crystalloids for Fluid Resuscitation in Children After Cardiac Surgery*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical benefit of using colloids versus crystalloids for volume resuscitation in children admitted after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective pre-/postintervention cohort study. SETTING: Stollery Children's Hospital tertiary care pediatric cardiac ICU. PATIENTS: Children admitted to the pediatric cardiac ICU after cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Fluid resuscitation policy change in which crystalloids replaced albumin 5% as the primary fluid strategy for resuscitation after cardiac surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Children who underwent cardiac surgery in the 6 months prior to the policy change (5% albumin group) were compared with children admitted during the 6 months after (crystalloid group). Demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables (fluid intake days 1-4 postoperative, vasoactive therapy, blood products, time to negative fluid balance, renal replacement therapies, mechanical ventilation, pediatric cardiac ICU, and length of stay) were collected. Data were analyzed using linear and logistic multivariate analysis. The study included 360 children. There was no association between fluid group and fluid intake (mL/kg) on day 1 postoperatively (coefficient, 2.84; 95% CI, 5.37-11.05; p = 0.497). However, crystalloid group was associated with significantly less fluid intake on day 2 (coefficient, -12.8; 95% CI, -22.0 to -3.65; p = 0.006), day 3 (coefficient, -14.9; 95% CI, -24.3 to -5.57; p = 0.002), and on the first 48 hours postoperative (coefficient, 10.1; 95% CI, -27.9 to -1.29; p = 0.032). Pediatric cardiac ICU stay (coefficient, -1.29; 95% CI, -2.50 to -0.08; p = 0.036) was shorter for the crystalloid group. There were no significant differences in the time to negative balance, need for renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation days, hospital stay, or pediatric cardiac ICU survival. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the use of albumin 5% for resuscitation after cardiac surgery was not associated with less fluid intake but rather the opposite. Albumin administration did not provide measured clinical benefit while exposing children to side effects and generating higher costs to the healthcare system.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".