Association of Phlebotomy on Blood Product Transfusion Requirements During Liver Transplantation: An Observational Cohort Study on 1000 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During the past 2 decades, transfusion requirements have decreased drastically during orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), and transfusion-free transplantation is nowadays increasingly common. Understanding that liberal intravenous volume loading in cirrhotic patients may have detrimental consequences is key. In contrast, phlebotomy is a method to lower central venous pressure and portal venous pressure. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of phlebotomy in the early phase of blood transfusion, blood loss, renal function, and mortality. Methods: The present study evaluated the impact of phlebotomy on bleeding, transfusion rate, renal dysfunction, and mortality in 1000 consecutive OLTs. Two groups were defined and compared using phlebotomy. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to determine predictors of bleeding, red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, renal dysfunction, and mortality. Results: A mean of 0.7 ± 1.5 RBC units was transfused per patient for 1000 OLTs, 75% did not receive any RBCs, and the median and interquartile range (25-75) were 0 for all blood products transfused. The phlebotomy was associated with decreased transfusion (RBCs, plasma, platelets, cryoprecipitate, albumin), with less bleeding, and with an increased survival rate, both 1 mo and 1 y. Phlebotomy was not associated with renal dysfunction. Conclusions: The practice of phlebotomy to lower portal venous pressure was associated with reduced blood product transfusions and blood loss during liver dissection without deleterious effect on renal function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".