Routine platelet transfusion in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage taking antiplatelet medication: Is it warranted?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After a traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH), patients often receive a platelet transfusion to reverse the effects of antiplatelet medication and to reduce neurologic complications. As platelet transfusions have their own risks, this study evaluated their effects on tICH progression, need for operations and mortality. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified patients admitted to a level 1 trauma centre with a tICH from 2011 to 2015 who were taking acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or clopidogrel, or both. We categorized patients into 2 groups: platelet transfusion recipients and nonrecipients. We collected data on demographic characteristics, changes in brain computed tomography findings, neurosurgical interventions, in-hospital death and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS). We used multivariable logistic regression to compare outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We identified 224 patients with tICH, 156 (69.6%) in the platelet transfusion group and 68 (30.4%) in the no transfusion group. There were no between-group differences in progression of bleeds or rates of neurosurgical interventions. In the transfusion recipients, there was a trend toward increased ICU LOS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-3.40) and in-hospital death (adjusted OR 3.23, 95% CI 0.48-21.74). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in outcomes between patients who received platelet transfusions and those who did not; however, the results suggest a worse clinical course, as indicated by greater ICU LOS and mortality, in the transfusion recipients. Routine platelet transfusion may not be warranted in patients taking ASA or clopidogrel who experience a tICH, as it may increase ICU LOS and mortality risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".