MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888335757 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1808561

Six-Month Outcomes after Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery

2018· article· en· W2888335757 on OpenAlexafffundabout
C. David Mazer, Richard Whitlock, Dean Fergusson, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Katherine Connolly, Boris Khanykin, Alexander J. Gregory, Étienne de Médicis, François Martin Carrier, Shay McGuinness, Paul J. Young, Kelly Byrne, Juan Carlos Villar, Alistair Royse, Hilary P. Grocott, Manfred D. Seeberger, Chirag Mehta, François Lellouche, Gregory M. T. Hare, Thomas Painter, Stephen E. Fremes, Summer Syed, Sean M. Bagshaw, Nian Chih Hwang, Colin Royse, Judith E. Hall, David Dai, Nikhil Mistry, Kevin E. Thorpe, Subodh Verma, Peter Jüni, Nadine Shehata

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Blood ServicesSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalSt. Boniface HospitalUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We reported previously that, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive transfusion strategy was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or 28 days after surgery, whichever came first. We now report the clinical outcomes at 6 months after surgery. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery to a restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <7.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively) or a liberal red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <9.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively when the patient was in the intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter when the patient was in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis occurring within 6 months after the initial surgery. An expanded secondary composite outcome included all the components of the primary outcome as well as emergency department visit, hospital readmission, or coronary revascularization occurring within 6 months after the index surgery. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the two composite outcomes. RESULTS: At 6 months after surgery, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 402 of 2317 patients (17.4%) in the restrictive-threshold group and in 402 of 2347 patients (17.1%) in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference before rounding, 0.22 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.95 to 2.39; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P=0.006 for noninferiority). Mortality was 6.2% in the restrictive-threshold group and 6.4% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.21). There were no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy for red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis at 6 months after surgery. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898 .).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations243
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207