Fluid therapy and pulmonary complications in abdominal surgeries: randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the most effective strategy for Postoperative Pulmonary Complication (PPC) reduction. This study hypothesized that a Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy (GDFT) protocol of infusion of predetermined boluses reduces the occurrence of PPC in patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgeries when compared with Standard of Care (SOC) strategy. METHODS: Randomized, prospective, controlled study, conducted from May 2012 to December 2014, with ASA I, II or III patients undergoing open abdominal surgeries, lasting at least 120 min, under general anesthesia, randomized into the SOC and the GDFT group. In the SOC, fluid administration was according to the anesthesiologist's discretion. In the GDFT, the intervention protocol, based on bolus infusion according to blood pressure and delta pulse pressure, was applied. Patients were postoperatively evaluated by an anesthesiologist blinded to the group allocation regarding PPC incidence, mortality, and Length of Hospital Stay (LOHS). RESULTS: Forty-two patients in the SOC group and 43 in the GDFT group. Nineteen patients (45%) in the SOC and 6 in the GDFT (14%) had at least one PPC (p = 0.003). There was no difference in mortality or LOHS between the groups. Among the patients with PPC, four died (25%), compared to two deaths in patients without PPC (3%) (p = 0.001). The LOHS had a median of 14.5 days in the group with PPC and 9 days in the group without PPC (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The GDFT protocol resulted in a lower rate of PPC; however, the LOHS and mortality did not reduce.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".