Red Cell Transfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction: AABB International Clinical Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DESCRIPTION: Optimal transfusion strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are uncertain. The aim of this guideline is to provide recommendations for red blood cell transfusion in patients with AMI. METHODS: These guidelines are based on evidence from randomized controlled trials of patients presenting with AMI and assigned to 2 different transfusion strategies (restrictive or liberal) based on hemoglobin concentrations or hematocrit levels before receipt of a transfusion. A meta-analysis of eligible trials was performed using Cochrane methods. The international panel followed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to summarize evidence and formulate recommendations. This guideline's primary perspective is that of the patient, including medical, financial, and psychological effects, with secondary consideration of health care system issues, particularly conservation of the limited and costly blood supply. RECOMMENDATION: For hospitalized patients with AMI, the panel suggests a liberal red cell transfusion strategy when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 10 g/dL (conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence). A restrictive strategy of 7 to 8 g/dL may result in increased mortality in patients with AMI. The direction of the recommendation for the liberal strategy was based on the great importance of mortality for patients. The conditional recommendation was based on the low certainty of evidence and the competing consideration of blood supply conservation. Clinicians should adopt mitigation strategies to reduce potential adverse events associated with a liberal transfusion strategy, and all transfusion decisions should incorporate the clinical context rather than solely the hemoglobin concentration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".