The use of FEIBA for refractory bleeding in cardiac surgery - a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant blood loss during cardiac surgery is associated with a dramatic increase in morbidity and mortality. Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity (FEIBA), a hemostatic bypassing agent mainly used in hemophiliac patients, has also been used for intractable bleeding during cardiac surgical procedures in non-hemophiliac patients. However, concerns exist that its use may be linked to increased incidence of perioperative adverse effects including thrombotic complications. A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for all studies that reported the administration of FEIBA for treatment of bleeding during adult cardiac surgery in non-hemophiliac patients. After selecting the title and abstracts, two authors assessed the methodological quality of the full-text articles prior to final inclusion in the manuscript. The safety profile of FEIBA was determined through an aggregate count of adverse events. Major complications included renal failure, re-operation for unresolved bleeding, postoperative mortality, and thromboembolic events. Overall, there is insufficient robust evidence to make a definitive conclusion about the safety or efficacy of using of FEIBA as a hemostatic agent in the setting of cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".