The Effect of the Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists upon Clinical Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2007 Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Soci ety of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Guide line for Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery was recently promulgated and has received much attention. Using a survey of cardiac anesthesiologists and perfusionists’ clinical practice, we assessed the current practices of perfusion, anesthesia, and surgery, as recommended by the Guidelines and also determined the role the Guidelines had in changing these practices. Nontrainee members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Perfusion, the Canadian Society of Clinical Perfusion, and the American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology were surveyed using a standardized survey instrument that examined clinical practices and responses to the Guidelines. One thousand four hundred and two surveys from 1,061 institutions principally in the United States (677 institutions) and Canada (34 institutions) were returned, with a 32% response rate. There was wide distribution of the Guidelines with 78% of anesthesiologists and 67% of perfusionists reporting having read all, part, or a summary of the Guidelines. However, only 20% of respondents reported that an institutional discussion had taken place as a result of the Guidelines, and only 14% of respondents reported that an institutional monitoring group had been formed. There was wide variability in current preoperative testing, perfusion, surgical, and pharmacological practices reported by respondents. Twenty-six percent of respondents reported one or more practice changes in response to the Guidelines. The changes made were reported to be highly (9%) or somewhat effective (31%) in reducing overall transfusion rates. Only four of 38 Guideline recommendations were reported by more than 5% of respondents to have been changed in response to the Guidelines. Wide variation in clinical practices of cardiac surgery was reported. Little change in clinical practices was attributed to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Guidelines.
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 | 0.029 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".