Standard Versus Restrictive Transfusion Strategy for Pediatric Cardiac ECLS Patients: Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare blood component transfusion before and after the implementation of a restrictive transfusion strategy (RTS) in pediatric cardiac Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) patients. The study included children admitted to the pediatric cardiac intensive care unit (PCICU) at the Stollery Children's Hospital who received ECLS between 2012 and 2020. Children on ECLS between 2012 and 2016 were treated with standard transfusion strategy (STS), while those on ECLS between 2016 and 2020 were treated with RTS. During the study, 203 children received ECLS. Daily median (interquartile range [IQR]) packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion volume was significantly lower in the RTS group; 26.0 (14.4-41.5) vs. 41.5 (26.6-64.4) ml/kg/day, p value <0.001. The implementation of a RTS led to a median reduction of PRBC transfusion of 14.5 (95% CI: 6.70-21.0) ml/kg/day. Similarly, the RTS group received less platelets: median (IQR) 8.4 (4.50-15.0) vs. 17.5 (9.40-29.0) ml/kg/day, p value <0.001. The implementation of a RTS resulted in a median reduction of platelet transfusion of 9.2 (95% CI: 5.45-13.1) ml/kg/day. The RTS resulted in less median (IQR) fluid accumulation in the first 48 hours: 56.7 (2.30-121.0) vs. 140.4 (33.8-346.2) ml/kg, p value = 0.001. There were no significant differences in mechanical ventilation days, PCICU/hospital days, or survival. The use of RTS resulted in lower blood transfusion volumes, with similar clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".