Effect of oxygen delivery during cardiopulmonary bypass on postoperative neurological outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A scoping review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Reduced oxygen delivery (DO 2 ) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was proposed as a risk factor for the development of postoperative neurological complications (PONCs), including cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), delirium, and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). We aimed to review the current evidence on the association between intraoperative DO 2 and the incidence of PONCs. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were electronically searched to identify comparative studies from inception until July 2023 that reported the association between intraoperative DO 2 levels and the incidence of PONCs (as defined by the scales and diagnostic tools utilized by the studies’ authors) in adults patients undergoing cardiac surgery using CPB. Results Of the 2513 papers identified, 10 studies, including 21,875 participants, were included. Of these, three studies reported on delirium, two on POCD, and five on CVA. Eight studies reported reduced intraoperative DO 2 in patients who developed delirium and CVA. There was a lack of consensus on the cut-off of DO 2 levels or the correlation between the period below these threshold values and the development of PONC. Conclusions Limited data suggest that maintaining intraoperative DO 2 above the critical threshold levels and ensuring adequate intraoperative cerebral perfusion may play a role in minimizing the incidence of neurological events in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".