Intraoperative transfusion management, antifibrinolytic therapy, coagulation monitoring and the impact on short‐term outcomes after liver transplantation—A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is frequently complicated by coagulopathy associated with end-stage liver disease (ESLD), that is, often multifactorial. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to identify evidence based intraoperative transfusion and coagulation management strategies that improve immediate and short-term outcomes after LT. METHODS: PRISMA-guidelines and GRADE-approach were followed. Three subquestions were formulated. (Q); Q1: transfusion management; Q2: antifibrinolytic therapy; and Q3: coagulation monitoring. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included for Q1, six for Q2, and 10 for Q3. Q1: PRBC and platelet transfusions were associated with higher mortality. The use of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) and fibrinogen concentrate (FC) were not associated with reductions in intraoperative transfusion or increased thrombotic events. The use of cell salvage was not associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence or mortality. Cell salvage and transfusion education significantly decreased blood product transfusions. Q2: Epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) and tranexamic acid (TXA) were not associated with decreased blood product transfusion, improvements in patient or graft survival, or increases in thrombotic events. Q3: Viscoelastic testing (VET) was associated with decreased allogeneic blood product transfusion compared to conventional coagulation tests (CCT) and is likely to be cost-effective. Coagulation management guided by VET may be associated with increases in FC and PCC use. CONCLUSION: Q1: A specific blood product transfusion practice is not recommended (QOE; low | Recommendation; weak). Cell salvage and educational interventions are recommended (QOE: low | Grade of Recommendation: moderate). Q2: The routine use of antifibrinolytics is not recommended (QOE; low | Recommendation; weak). Q3: The use of VET is recommended (QOE; low-moderate | Recommendation; strong).
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".