Rescue Therapy With Factor VII for Refractory Cardiac Surgical Bleeding: A Propensity-Score-Matched Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare effectiveness and safety of rescue therapy approach with recombinant Factor VII activated (rFVIIa) for refractory bleeding in cardiac surgery compared with a propensity-score-matched control group at a single academic institution. METHODS: In total, 8860 adult patients had cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 2009 and 2019. Ninety-seven patients (1.1%) received rFVIIa; 81 (83.5%) of rFVIIa cases were propensity score matched 1:1 with controls using pre- and intraoperative variables. Effectiveness was assessed with coagulation tests, chest tube drainage, and reoperation for bleeding. Safety was assessed with morbi-mortality. RESULTS: The median dose of rFVIIa was 55.6 μg/kg (IQR, 37.4-80.0 μg/kg). The first dose after CPB was given at a Median time of 176 min (IQR, 131-232 min). Postoperative INR was lower in the rFVIIa group (Median, 0.8; IQR, 0.7-0.9) versus control (Median, 1.4; IQR 1.3-1.6; P <.0001). Other coagulation tests, chest tube drainage, and reoperation for bleeding were no different. Mortality and thrombo-embolism were higher in the rFVIIa-OR, 3.17 (95% CI, 1.41-7.14; P = .0054) and OR, 10.50 (95% CI, 1.64-117.5; P = .0196). Stroke (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.51-6.48; P = .35) and renal failure (OR, 1.31, 95% CI, 0.69-2.48, P = .41) were not statistically different. RFVIIa group received 4.4 (95% CI, 3.28-5.91, P = .0001) and 1.97 (95% CI, 1.18-3.30; P = .02) times more blood products volume intra- and postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue therapy with rFVIIa seems to effectively control bleeding. However, we observed an association with increased mortality, thromboembolism, and transfusion. We did not find rFVIIa association with risk of stroke or renal failure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".