Exposure To ABO Compatible But Non-Group Identical Blood and In-Hospital Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Transfusions that are ABO compatible but not group identical (mismatched) are given for a variety of reasons including inventory availability, avoiding wastage from outdating, and clinical urgency. A recent observation at our centre suggested that patient outcome was different for those patients that received a transfusion of units with a compatible but mismatched ABO group compared to those receiving ABO group identical blood. Hence, we performed a retrospective hospital registry study to explore the association between mismatched blood and in-hospital mortality in transfused patients. Study Design Our patient/blood utilization database included 35,487 transfused hospitalized patients from 3 acute care academic centres from April 1, 2002 to October 31, 2011. Information on transfused RBCs included duration of storage (days) and ABO type. Patient data included: sex; age; hemoglobin; creatinine; diagnosis; interventions; ABO blood group and hospital discharge status. Factors associated with mismatched blood and in-hospital mortality were examined using generalized estimating equations to account for the potential serial dependence over multiple transfusions. The effect of exposure to ABO mismatched blood on in-hospital death was examined through Cox regression with time-dependent strata defined by: year of first admission; disease group; and the cumulative number of units transfused (≤ 7 days of storage; > 7 days but ≤ 28 days storage; and, >28 days of storage); and, controlling for available baseline and time-varying characteristics. Results 18,843 patients (blood groups A, B and AB), with complete covariates contributed to the analysis. Factors associated with transfusion of mismatched blood included: younger patient age (p<0.0001); lower hemoglobin (p<0.0001); higher creatinine (p<0.0001); intervention during hospitalization (OR=4.6, p<0.0001); and, patient ABO group whereby blood types A and B were much less likely to receive a mismatched unit compared to type AB patients (p<0.0001). There was a statistically significant interaction between patient blood type and the effect of receiving mismatched blood (p=0.034) with type A patients incurring a 79% higher risk of death (RR=1.79, 95% CI: 1.20, 2.67; p=0.0047); other patient blood types did not suggest increased risk. Similar results were observed when suspected trauma patients (≥ 6 units within 24 hours) were excluded from the analysis (Table 1). Conclusion Controlling for known potential confounders through Cox regression yielded evidence of increased risk of in-hospital mortality among blood type A patients receiving group O red cells. This association remained after suspected trauma patients were excluded from the analyses. Further study of the association observed in this study is warranted. Disclosures: Cook: CIHR: Research Funding. Heddle:CIHR: Research Funding; Canadian Blood Services: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Health Canada: Research Funding. Eikelboom:CIHR: Research Funding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".