Practice patterns of <scp>ABO‐matching</scp> for cryoprecipitate and patient outcomes after <scp>ABO‐compatible</scp> versus incompatible cryoprecipitate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This sub-study of the FIBRES trial sought to examine the patterns of ABO-compatible cryoprecipitate administration and to identify adverse consequences of ABO-incompatible cryoprecipitate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data collected from the FIBRES randomized clinical trial comparing fibrinogen concentrate with cryoprecipitate in the treatment of bleeding related to hypofibrinogenemia after cardiac surgery. The primary outcome was the percentage of administered cryoprecipitate that was ABO-compatible. Secondary outcomes were adverse events at 28 days. A follow-up survey was distributed to the FIBRES participating sites to examine the rationale behind the identified cryoprecipitate ABO-matching practice patterns. RESULTS: A total of 363 patients were included: 53 (15%) received ABO-incompatible cryoprecipitate and 310 (85%) received ABO-compatible cryoprecipitate. There was an increased incidence of post-operative anaemia in the ABO-incompatible group (15; 28.3%) in comparison to the ABO-compatible (44; 14.2%) group (p = 0.01) at 28 days, which was unrelated to haemolysis, without a significant difference in transfusion requirement. In the multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site, there was no observed statistically significant association between the administration of ABO-incompatible cryoprecipitate and any other adverse outcomes. Nine out of 11 sites did not have a policy requiring ABO-matched cryoprecipitate. CONCLUSION: This sub-study demonstrated that most cryoprecipitate administered in practice is ABO-compatible, despite the absence of guidelines or blood bank policies to support this practice. A signal towards increased risk of post-operative anaemia may be explained by higher rates of urgent surgery (vs. elective) in the ABO-incompatible group. Future studies should prospectively examine the impact of ABO-compatible versus incompatible cryoprecipitate to conclusively establish if there is a meaningful clinical impact associated with the administration of ABO-incompatible cryoprecipitate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".