Prophylactic tranexamic acid use in non‐cardiac surgeries at high risk for transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces transfusion in a wide range of surgical populations, although its real-world use in non-cardiac surgeries has not been well described. The objective of this study was to describe prophylactic TXA use in non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for transfusion. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery at ≥5% risk of perioperative transfusion at five Canadian hospitals between January 2014 and December 2016. Canadian Classification of Health Interventions procedure codes within the Discharge Abstract Database were linked to transfusion and laboratory databases. TXA use was ascertained electronically from The Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse and via manual chart review for Winnipeg hospitals. For each surgery, we evaluated the percentage of patients who received TXA as well as the specifics of TXA dosing and administration. RESULTS: TXA use was evaluable in 14 300 patients. Overall, 17% of surgeries received TXA, ranging from 0% to 68% among individual surgeries. TXA use was more common in orthopaedic (n = 2043/4942; 41%) and spine surgeries (n = 239/1322; 18%) compared to other surgical domains (n = 109/8036; 1%). TXA was commonly administered as a bolus (n = 2097/2391; 88%). The median TXA dose was 1000 mg (IQR 1000-1000 mg). CONCLUSION: TXA is predominantly used in orthopaedic and spine surgeries, with little uptake in other non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for red blood cell transfusion. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TXA and to understand the barriers to TXA administration in a broad range of non-cardiac surgeries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".