MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921306464 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.228

A229 THE USE OF INTRAVENOUS ALBUMIN IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF PRACTICE PATTERNS AT A TERTIARY CARE TEACHING HOSPITAL

2019· article· en· W2921306464 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Rodrigues, Jennifer A. Flemming

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisSpontaneous bacterial peritonitisHepatorenal syndromeAlbuminRetrospective cohort studyMedical prescriptionInternal medicineLiver diseaseIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intravenous (IV) albumin is a colloidal substance that is often used in the management of patients with cirrhosis. Current evidence-based guidelines support the use of albumin in Type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), large volume paracentesis (LVP) and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Physician surveys indicate that IV albumin is routinely used outside of recommended indications; however, little is known about the current prescribing indications in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to characterize the indications for which albumin was administered to patients with cirrhosis admitted to a tertiary care teaching hospital. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with cirrhosis admitted to the Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC) between January 1st and December 31st ,2017. After electronic medical record review, those with a confirmed diagnosis of cirrhosis who received at least one dose of IV albumin were included. A detailed primary chart review was conducted and data was abstracted related to baseline demographics, disease related-characteristics, and the type and total dose of albumin prescribed. The indication for albumin was defined as HRS, LVP, or SBP based on recognized clinical criteria. Those not meeting criteria for these three conditions were considered to have albumin administered outside of clinical practice guidelines. We identified 466 patients with cirrhosis admitted to KHSC and of those, 134 (29%) met inclusion criteria and received 173 total prescriptions for albumin. The median age was 62 years (IQR 56–69), 71% were male with a median length of stay of 10 days (IQR 7–19). The median MELD-Na score on admission was 22 (IQR 17–27). The most common causes of cirrhosis were alcohol-related (57 [43%])) followed by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (27 [20%]) and hepatitis C (21 [16%]). The median dose of albumin administered per patient during the hospitalization was 125 grams (IQR 50–300 grams). Out of all the discrete instances where albumin was administered, LVP accounted for 30% of the cases, followed by SBP (10%), and HRS Type 1 (9%) while 51% had albumin prescribed outside of guidelines. Non-guideline indications for albumin administration included hypovolemia (17%), acute kidney injury not meeting HRS criteria (10%), sepsis (8%), paracentesis of less than 5L (1%), volume overload (1%) and hyponatremia (1%) – in the remainder of cases (13%), there was no clear indication identified. In a large, academic hospital, the use of IV albumin in patients with cirrhosis extended beyond current evidence-based guidelines in over 50% of cases. Given that evidence of the benefit of albumin does not exist in these settings, future studies evaluating the clinical benefits and costs of albumin use in these circumstances is warranted. CAG

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→