Decreasing Postoperative Blood Loss by Topical vs. Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Open Cardiac Surgery (DEPOSITION) study: Results of a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery patients are at high risk for postoperative bleeding. Intravenous (IV) tranexamic acid (TxA) is a commonly used antifibrinolytic drug, but is associated with postoperative seizures. We conducted this pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine the feasibility of a larger trial that will be designed to investigate the impact of TxA administration route, intrapericardial (IP) vs IV, on postoperative bleeding and seizures. METHODS: In this single-center, double-blinded, pilot RCT we enrolled adult patients undergoing nonemergent on-pump cardiac operations through a median sternotomy. Participants were randomized to IP or IV TxA groups. The primary outcomes were cumulative chest tube drainage, transfusion requirements, and incidence of postoperative seizures. RESULTS: A total of 97 participants were randomized to the intervention and control groups. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Most participants underwent a CABG and/or aortic valve replacement. There was no statistical difference. The IP TxA group was found to have a tendency for less chest tube drainage in comparison to the IV TxA group, 500.5 (370.0-700.0) and 540.0 (420.0-700.0) mL, respectively, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.2854). Fewer participants in the IP TxA group with cardiac tamponade and/or required a reoperation for bleeding and fewer packed red blood cell transfusions. None of the IP TxA group developed seizure vs one from the IV TxA group. CONCLUSION: This is the first known pilot RCT to investigate the role of TxA route of administration in open cardiac surgery. Intrapericardial TxA shows promising results with decreased bleeding, transfusion requirements, reoperations, and postoperative seizures. A larger RCT is needed to confirm these results and lead to a change in practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".