MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

153: Fibrinogen Concentrate Dosing Guidelines to Treat Acquired Hypofibrinogenemia in Pediatric ECMO

2024· article· en· W4402940408 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Withers, S. Kerrigan, Mark Todd, Dalal Al-Thubaiti, Yasser Kazzaz, Minako Sano, Paula Carroll, Leonardo R. Brandão, Anne‐Marie Guerguerian

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypofibrinogenemiaDosingMedicineFibrinogenIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Acquired hypofibrinogenemia may occur in patients supported with ECMO. It is commonly treated using cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate. There is very limited data on the use of fibrinogen concentrate in children on ECMO. We developed a guideline for replacement using fibrinogen concentrate. Methods: We developed and deployed an institutional guidelines for the administration of fibrinogen concentrate. All administrations were evaluated to measure the efficacy in increasing fibrinogen activity levels. Results: Between April 2022 to February 2024, 22 patients received fibrinogen concentrate (RIASTAP®). The indication for ECMO was for cardiac support in 11, pulmonary support in 4, and ECPR in 7. Median age was 2.3 m (IQR: 72 days, 1-549 days), weight 3.9 kg (IQR: 3.4-10.6kg), and first dose was 50 mg/kg (range 31-70 mg/kg). Three potential types of membranes and circuit volumes (250 ml, 320 ml, 600 ml) were used. The median increase in fibrinogen activity following the first dose was 0.4 g/L (IQR: 0.1-0.7). No thrombotic nor circuit complications were reported attributable to the delivery of the product. Conclusion and future directions: Clinicians chose to deliver the dose calculation option per weight over a target level option. The increase in fibrinogen activity achieved was modest. Given the safety profile of the current dosage, we propose to increase the dose. We will evaluate the impact on the co-administration of other replacement products and on the magnitude of bleeding. As there was no uptake of the target-based dose calculation, this option will be removed to minimize confusion.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207