Systematic review and network meta-analysis of various nadir temperature strategies for hypothermic circulatory arrest for aortic arch surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal nadir temperature for hypothermic circulatory arrest during aortic arch surgery remains unclear. We aimed to assess and compare clinical outcomes of all three temperature strategies (deep, moderate, and mild hypothermia) using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: After literature search with MEDLINE and EMBASE through December 2021, studies comparing clinical outcomes with deep (<20°C), moderate (20-28°C), or mild (>28°C) hypothermic circulatory arrest were included. The outcomes of interest were perioperative mortality, stroke, transient ischemia attack (TIA), acute kidney injury (AKI), postoperative bleeding, operative time, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty-four comparative studies were identified, including 6018 patients undergoing aortic arch surgery using hypothermic circulatory arrest (deep: 2,978, moderate: 2,525, and mild: 515). Compared to deep hypothermia, mild and moderate hypothermia were associated with lower mortality (mild vs. deep: odds ratio [OR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.87, moderate vs. deep: OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54-0.86). In addition, mild hypothermia was associated with lower stroke (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.28-0.89), AKI (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.15-0.88) and postoperative bleeding (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.31-0.97) compared to deep hypothermia. There was no significant difference between mild and moderate hypothermia in mortality, AKI or bleeding occurrence, while mild hypothermia was associated with shorter operative time and hospital stay. There was no significant difference in TIA rate among three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mild hypothermia was associated with overall more favorable clinical outcomes with comparable neurological complications compared to deep hypothermia. Furthermore, considering the shorter operative time and hospital stay compared with moderate hypothermia, mild hypothermia may be warranted when appropriate adjunctive cerebral perfusion is employed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".