Abstract 10489: CVSA Early Career Investigator Award Finalist: Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion for Acute Coronary Syndromes - Insights From the TRICS-III Randomized Controlled Trial, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The optimal transfusion strategy for patients with ACS is unclear. Current data are inconclusive and there is a paucity of long term data; therefore, we performed a subgroup analysis of patients with AMI in the Transfusion Thresholds in Cardiac Surgery (TRICS-III) randomized controlled trial (RCT) to add evidence addressing this important clinical question, and interpret the results in the context of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The TRICS-III trial randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass with a moderate-to-high risk of death to restrictive transfusion (transfuse at hemoglobin <7.5g/dL) or a liberal strategy (operating room and ICU: transfuse at hemoglobin <9.5g/dL; ward: <8.5g/dL). AMI patients were those undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with a recent MI and ≥1 of the following enrichment criteria: unstable angina, critical preoperative state, preoperative intra aortic balloon pump, and/or emergency surgery. The primary outcome for this analysis was MACE (all-cause death, MI, and revascularization) at 6 months. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through April 2022 to identify RCTs evaluating restrictive versus liberal transfusion in patients with ACS. The primary outcome was MACE at the longest available timepoint. Results: In the TRICS AMI population (N=194), a restrictive transfusion strategy did not increase the risk of MACE (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.57-3.27). Three additional RCTs met eligibility criteria for the systematic review yielding a total of 1015 patients. The transfusion strategies were similar across all studies. After synthesizing the data, restrictive transfusion was associated with a trend toward an increased absolute risk of MACE (4%; 95% CI, -1 to 9%) and MI (3%; 95% CI, 0 to 6%) at the longest available timepoint (Figure). Conclusion: In the setting of ACS, liberal transfusion strategies may reduce the risk of long term adverse cardiovascular events.
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 | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".