MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042073713 · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivaa094

Intravenous iron therapy for patients with preoperative iron deficiency or anaemia undergoing cardiac surgery reduces blood transfusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3042073713 on OpenAlexaff
Saurabh Gupta, Puru Panchal, Kevin Gilotra, Ann Mary Wilfred, Winston Hou, Deborah Siegal, Richard Whitlock, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRelative riskRandomized controlled trialIron deficiencyInternal medicineCardiac surgeryBlood transfusionSurgeryAnemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of preoperative intravenous (IV) iron treatment in cardiac surgery patients with preoperative anaemia or iron deficiency have not been well-established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of treating preoperative anaemia or iron deficiency with IV iron in adult cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Systems Online and Excerpta Medica Database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing IV iron to oral iron or no iron. We performed title and abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random effects model and evaluated the overall quality of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 4 RCTs and 7 observational studies. Pooled data from observational studies suggested a benefit of IV iron compared to no iron on mortality [relative risk 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.65; P < 0.001, very low quality], units transfused per patient (mean difference -1.22, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.60; P < 0.001, very low quality), renal injury (relative risk 0.50, 95% CI 0.36-0.69; P < 0.001, very low quality) and hospital length of stay (mean difference -4.24 days, 95% CI -6.86 to -1.63; P = 0.001, very low quality). Pooled data from RCTs demonstrated a reduction in the number of patients transfused with IV iron compared to oral or no iron (relative risk 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94; P = 0.005, moderate quality). The pooled estimates of effect from RCTs for mortality, hospital length of stay, units transfused per patient and renal injury were consistent in direction with observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that IV iron improves postoperative morbidity in adult cardiac surgery patients with preoperative anaemia or iron deficiency. A large, rigorous, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial is needed to clarify the role of IV iron in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: International prospective register of systematic reviews ID Number CRD42019122844.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.033
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgerySame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207