Use of antifibrinolytics in pediatric cardiac surgery: Where are we now?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibrinolytic activation is a major and preventable source of bleeding in neonates and children undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Based on the existing literature (adult and pediatric; cardiac and noncardiac), prophylactic administration of antifibrinolytic agents can help reduce fibrinolytic activation, and consequently reduces perioperative bleeding and the requirement for blood product transfusion. Due to the increased risk of renal failure and mortality reported in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, aprotinin should not be considered as a safe option in neonates and children. Further well-designed studies would be required before the prophylactic administration of aprotinin could be considered in pediatric cardiac surgery. The lysine analogs, tranexamic acid and ϵ-aminocaproic acid,, should be considered as safe and effective antifibrinolytic agents. Although no major side effects have been reported following the administration of lysine analogs in children undergoing cardiac surgery, high-dose tranexamic acid should not be recommended in order to avoid the increased risk of clinical seizures. Despite the recent advances made in our understanding of the pharmacokinetics of tranexamic acid and ϵ-aminocaproic acid,, the optimal plasmatic concentration to be targeted remains unknown. Further studies are therefore urgently needed to better define the optimal dose regimen to be used in neonates and children. In the meantime, the dose regimen published in the most recent pharmacokinetic studies can be used. Although no studies have assessed the effect of massive bleeding and transfusion on the plasmatic concentrations of the lysine analogs, additional boluses might be considered in the presence of bleeding and/or when signs of fibrinolytic activations are observed on viscoelastic hemostatic assays.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".