MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405720393 · doi:10.1056/evidoa2400223

Restrictive versus Liberal Transfusion in Myocardial Infarction — A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4405720393 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey L. Carson, Dean Fergusson, Helaine Noveck, Ranjeeta Mallick, Tabassome Simon, Sunil V. Rao, Howard Cooper, Simon Stanworth, Gerard Portela, Grégory Ducrocq, Marnie Bertolet, Andrew P. DeFilippis, Andrew M. Goldsweig, Sarang Kim, Darrell J. Triulzi, Mark Menegus, J. Dawn Abbott, Renato D. Lópes, Maria M. Brooks, John H. Alexander, Paul C. Hébert, Shaun G. Goodman, Philippe Gabríel Steg

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

VenueNEJM Evidence · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMeta-analysisMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have concluded that there are insufficient data to provide recommendations for the hemoglobin threshold for the use of red cell transfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia. After the recent publication of the Myocardial Infarction and Transfusion (MINT) trial, we performed an individual patient-level data meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies. METHODS: We conducted searches in major databases. Eligible trials randomly assigned patients with MI and anemia to either a restrictive (i.e., transfusion threshold of 7-8 g/dl) or liberal (i.e., transfusion threshold of 10 g/dl) red cell transfusion strategy. We used individual patient data from each trial. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality or MI. RESULTS: We included 4311 patients from four trials. The primary outcome occurred in 334 patients (15.4%) in the restrictive strategy and 296 patients (13.8%) in the liberal strategy (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.30). Death at 30 days occurred in 9.3% of patients in the restrictive strategy and in 8.1% of patients in the liberal strategy (RR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.39). Cardiac death at 30 days occurred in 5.5% of patients in the restrictive strategy and in 3.7% of patients in the liberal strategy (RR 1.47, 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.94). Heart failure (RR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.13) was similar in the transfusion strategies. All-cause mortality at 6 months occurred in 20.5% of patients in the restrictive strategy compared with 19.1% of patients in the liberal strategy (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Pooling individual patient data from four trials did not find a definitive difference in our primary composite outcome of MI or death at 30 days. At 6 months, a restrictive transfusion strategy was associated with increased all-cause mortality. (Partially funded by a grant from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL171977].).

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.032 · 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