MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Topical Versus Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: The DEPOSITION Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4394578682 on OpenAlexafffund
André Lamy, Д. А. Сирота, Frédéric Jacques, Ahmad Poostizadeh, Nicolas Noiseux, Sergey Efremov, Philippe Demers, B.A. Akselrod, Chew Yin Wang, Rakesh C. Arora, Piotr Branny, Shay McGuinness, Craig Brown, Hugues Jeanmart, Qiang Zhao, Haibo Zhang, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Richard Whitlock, Austin Browne, Ingrid Copland, Jessica Vincent, Rutaba Khatun, Kumar Balasubramanian, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Michael McGillion, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Jessica Spence, Salim Yusuf, P.J. Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalSaint John Regional HospitalImpactHamilton General HospitalUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteKelowna General HospitalThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstitutePopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPopulation Health Research Institute
KeywordsTranexamic acidMedicineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialInterim analysisCardiopulmonary bypassCardiac surgerySurgeryAntifibrinolyticBlood transfusionBlood loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although intravenous tranexamic acid is used in cardiac surgery to reduce bleeding and transfusion, topical tranexamic acid results in lower plasma concentrations compared with intravenous tranexamic acid, which may lower the risk of seizures. We aimed to determine whether topical tranexamic acid reduces the risk of in-hospital seizure without increasing the risk of transfusion among cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double dummy, blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients recruited by convenience sampling in academic hospitals undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Between September 17, 2019, and November 28, 2023, a total of 3242 patients from 16 hospitals in 6 countries were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either intravenous tranexamic acid (control) through surgery or topical tranexamic acid (treatment) at the end of surgery. The primary outcome was seizure, and the secondary outcome was red blood cell transfusion. After the last planned interim analysis, when 75% of anticipated participants had completed follow up, the data and safety monitoring board recommended to terminate the trial, and upon unblinding, the operations committee stopped the trial for safety. RESULTS: Among 3242 randomized patients (mean age, 66.0 years; 77.7% male), in-hospital seizure occurred in 4 of 1624 patients (0.2%) in the topical group, and 11 of 1628 patients (0.7%) in the intravenous group (absolute risk difference, −0.5% [95% CI, −0.9 to 0.03]; P =0.07). Red blood cell transfusion occurred in 570 patients (35.1%) in the topical group and in 433 (26.8%) in the intravenous group (absolute risk difference, 8.3% [95% CI, 5.2–11.5]; P =0.007). The absolute risk difference in transfusion of ≥4 units of red blood cells in the topical group compared with the intravenous group was 8.2% (95% CI, 3.4–12.9). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, topical administration of tranexamic acid resulted in an 8.3% absolute increase in transfusion without reducing the incidence of seizure, compared with intravenous tranexamic acid. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03954314.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207