Starch or Saline After Cardiac Surgery: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite decades of investigation, the balance of clinical risks and benefits of fluid supplementation with starch remain unresolved. Patient-centered outcomes have not been well explored in a “real-world” trial in cardiac surgery. Objective: We sought to compare a starch-based fluid strategy with a saline-based fluid strategy in the cardiac surgery patient. Design: A pragmatic blinded randomized controlled trial comparing starch-based with saline-based fluid strategy. Setting: A large tertiary academic center in London Ontario between September 2009 and February 2011. Participants: Patients undergoing planned, isolated coronary revascularization. Measurements: Serum creatinine and patient weight were measured daily postoperatively. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive 6% hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven) or saline for perioperative fluid requirements. Fluid administration was not protocolized. Co-primary outcomes were incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and maximum postoperative weight gain. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, transfusion, inotropic and ventilator support, and fluid utilization. Results: The study was prematurely terminated due to resource limitations. A total of 69 patients (19% female, mean age = 65) were randomized. Using RIFLE criteria for AKI, “risk” occurred in 12 patients in each group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5-1.9; P = 1.00), whereas “injury” occurred in 7 of 35 (20%) and 3 of 34 (9%) of patients in the starch and saline groups, respectively (RR = 2.3; 95% CI = 0.6-8.1; P = .31). Maximum weight gain, bleeding and blood product usage, and overall fluid requirement were similar between groups. Limitations: The study had to be prematurely terminated due to resource limitations which led to a small sample size which was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcomes. Conclusions: This pragmatic double-blinded randomized controlled trial revealed a number of interesting hypothesis-generating trends and confirmed the feasibility of undertaking a logistically complex trial in a pragmatic fashion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".