Continuous Ultrafiltration Enhances Recovery After Adult Cardiac Surgery With Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with systemic inflammation. Ultrafiltration used throughout the cardiopulmonary bypass time, continuously, is hypothesized to be an immunomodulatory therapy. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating continuous forms of ultrafiltration during adult cardiac surgery (CRD42020219309) was conducted and is reported following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus were searched on November 3, 2021. The primary endpoint was operative mortality, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), ventilation time, acute kidney injury or renal failure, and pneumonia. Each study was assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk-of Bias-Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB2) instrument. Outcomes were analyzed with inverse variance random-effects models and assessed for GRADE quality of evidence. Results Twelve randomized trials consisting of 989 adult patients undergoing coronary, valvular, or concomitant cardiac procedures were included. Compared to controls, patients receiving continuous ultrafiltration had no statistical difference in operative mortality; risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-1.03; P = 0.06). Reductions occurred in ICU LOS, by 7.01 hours (95% CI: 1.86-12.15; P = 0.008); ventilation time, by 2.11 hours (95% CI: 0.71-3.51; P = 0.003); and incidence of pneumonia, with a risk ratio of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.15-0.75; P = 0.008). There wasno difference in renal injury. The GRADE quality of evidence for these outcomes ranged from very low to low. Conclusions Continuous forms of ultrafiltration enhance recovery after adult cardiac surgery by reducing ICU LOS, ventilation time, and incidence of pneumonia. A multicentre randomized trial could confirm and generalize these findings.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".