MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010553620 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraa024.147

515 Compliance with a Restrictive Blood Transfusion Strategy: Do We Actually Follow Scientific Evidence?

2020· article· en· W3010553620 on OpenAlexaff
David K. Wallace, Alan D. Rogers, Robert Cartotto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemoglobinBlood transfusionIntensive care unitRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Many burn centers use a restrictive blood transfusion strategy based on randomized controlled trials in burn patients (e.g. Transfusion Requirements in Burn Care Evaluation -TRIBE) and non-burn populations (e.g. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care – TRICC), which have demonstrated no increased morbidity or mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion approaches. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adherence to a restrictive hemoglobin transfusion trigger strategy of 7 g/dL. Methods Retrospective study of all patients admitted to an adult regional ABA-verified burn centre between 15/11/ 2015 and 15/6/2018 who received at least one unit of blood (RBC). We use a restrictive transfusion strategy that administers RBC for a hemoglobin (HGb) < 7 gm/dL, one unit at a time, with a pre and post HGb level for each RBC transfusion, unless the patient is actively bleeding and/or hemodynamically unstable. RBC transfusions in the operating room do not follow this policy and were not studied. Values are presented as mean ± SD or median (IQR) as appropriate. Results We studied 66 patients (30% female) with age 53.2 ± 18.3 years, % TBSA burn 22 (11–41), % TBSA full thickness burn 6.5 (0.5 -21.8), and with 41% having inhalation injury. Overall, there were 691 RBC transfusions (TXns). A pre-TXn HGb was obtained 95% of the time and was 6.8 (6.5–7) gm/dL. TXn for a HGb > 7 gm/dL occurred in 35%. A post TXn HGb was obtained for 92% of these TXns with a HGb of 7.6 (7.2–8) gm/dL. RBC TXns during nighttime (1700 to 0800, n=449) were given for a HGb trigger of 6.8 (6.4–6.9) and were not compliant with our restrictive strategy 22% of the time. Daytime transfusions (0800 to 1700, n=207) were given for a significantly higher HGb [7 (6.7–7.1), p< 0.001] with significantly more non-compliance with the restrictive strategy (50%, p< 0.001). We also compared TXns before and after the TRIBE publication. Pre-TRIBE TXns (n=484) were given for significantly lower HGb than 172 post TRIBE TXns [6.8 (6.4–7) vs 6.9 (6.6–7.1) gm/dL respectively, p=0.001] and at significantly lower rate of non-compliance with the 7 gm/dL threshold than post TRIBE transfusions (28.1% vs 37.8%, respectively, p=0.02). Conclusions While a pre-TXn HGb level was available for 95% of blood transfusions, approximately one-third were given for a HGb > 7 gm/dL. Transfusion during nighttime (being predominantly ordered by housestaff physicians) were administered at a significantly lower HGb trigger and with significantly better compliance with the restrictive strategy than daytime transfusions. Paradoxically, compliance with the restrictive strategy was worse following the TRIBE publication. Applicability of Research to Practice These results identify important areas for improvement in adherence to our restrictive transfusion strategy.

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)0.206
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.561
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2060.561
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207