MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394769091 · doi:10.4103/aca.aca_160_23

Epidural Catheterization in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Risk Assessment of Epidural Hematoma

2024· review· en· W4394769091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Cardiac Anaesthesia · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Hematomas and Complications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidural hematomaMedicineHematomaCardiac catheterizationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The potential benefits of epidural anesthesia on mortality, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary complications must be weighed against the risk of epidural hematoma associated with intraoperative heparinization. This study aims to provide an updated assessment of the clinical risks of epidural anesthesia in cardiac surgery, focusing on the occurrence of epidural hematomas and subsequent paralysis. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Ovid Central, Web of Science, and PubMed was conducted to identify relevant publications between 1966 and 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of the retrieved manuscripts. Studies reporting adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with epidural catheterization were included. The incidence of hematomas was calculated by dividing the number of hematomas by the total number of patients in the included studies. Risk calculations utilized various denominators based on the rigor of trial designs, and the risks of hematoma and paralysis were compared to other commonly encountered risks. The analysis included a total of 33,089 patients who underwent cardiac surgery with epidural catheterization. No epidural hematomas were reported across all published RCTs, prospective, and retrospective trials. Four case reports associated epidural hematoma with epidural catheterization and perioperative heparinization. The risks of epidural hematoma and subsequent paralysis were estimated at 1:7643 (95% CI 1:3860 to 380,916) and 1:10,190 (95% CI 1:4781 to 0:1), respectively. The risk of hematoma is similar to the non-obstetric population (1:5405; 95% CI 1:4784 to 6134). The risk of hematoma in cardiac surgery patients receiving epidural anesthesia is therefore similar to that observed in some other surgical non-obstetric populations commonly exposed to epidural catheterization.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.336 · 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