Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypass Activity Use in Cardiac Surgery: A Propensity-matched Analysis of Safety Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bleeding during cardiac surgery may be refractory to standard interventions. Off-label use of factor eight inhibitor bypass activity (FEIBA) has been described to treat such bleeding. However, reports of safety, particularly thromboembolic outcomes, show mixed results, and reported cohorts have been small. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023, at Stanford Hospital (Stanford, California) were reviewed (n = 3,335). Patients who received FEIBA to treat postcardiopulmonary bypass bleeding were matched with those who did not by propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio using nearest neighbor matching (n = 352 per group). The primary outcome was a composite outcome of thromboembolic complications including any one of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, unplanned coronary artery intervention, ischemic stroke, and acute limb ischemia, in the postoperative period. Secondary outcomes included renal failure, reoperation, postoperative transfusion, intensive care unit length of stay, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 704 encounters was included in this propensity-matched analysis. The mean dose of FEIBA administered was 7.3 ± 5.5 U/kg. In propensity-matched multivariate logistic regression models, there was no statistically significant difference in odds ratios for thromboembolic outcomes, intensive care unit length of stay, or mortality. Patients who received more than 750 U FEIBA had an increased odds ratio for acute renal failure (odds ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.61 to 10.36; P < 0.001). In multivariate linear regression, patients receiving FEIBA were transfused more plasma and cryoprecipitate postoperatively. However, only the dose range of 501 to 750 U was associated with an increase in transfusion of erythrocytes (β, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.68 to 4.78; P = 0.009) and platelets (β, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.63; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose FEIBA administration during cardiac surgery does not increase risk of thromboembolic events, intensive care unit length of stay, or mortality in a propensity-matched cohort. Higher doses were associated with increased acute renal failure and postoperative transfusion. Further studies are required to establish the efficacy of activated factor concentrates to treat refractory bleeding during 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".