A hospital policy of tranexamic acid to reduce transfusion in major non-cardiac surgery: The traction trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Whether a hospital policy of tranexamic acid administration for patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery safely reduces red blood cell (RBC) transfusion without increasing thrombotic risk is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, registry-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, cluster-crossover trial enrolling patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries at high risk for RBC transfusion. Hospitals were randomized at 4-week intervals to a hospital-wide policy of intraoperative tranexamic acid or placebo. Co-primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were the proportion of patients transfused RBCs during hospital admission, and the proportion of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism within 90 days. The safety of the tranexamic policy compared to placebo was based on a non-inferiority margin where the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of venous thromboembolism had to be below 1.47. Secondary outcomes included the number of RBC units transfused, in-hospital diagnoses of myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission, hospital survival and overall survival to day 90. RESULTS The co-primary outcomes were evaluable for 8273 patients enrolled across 10 Canadian hospitals. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The most common surgical specialties included general surgery (n=2742; 33.1%), gynecology (n=1540; 18.6%), urology (n=1434; 17.3%), vascular surgery (n=582; 7.0%), and spine surgery (n=461; 5.6%). Most of the population underwent surgery for an oncologic indication (n=5002; 60.5%). The proportion of patients transfused RBCs during hospital admission was 7.4% (306/4156) in the tranexamic acid group and 9.8% (403/4117) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.89; absolute difference, -2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to -4.6%). The proportion of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism was 2.1% (86/4156) in the tranexamic acid group and 2.2% (90/4117) in the placebo group (odds radio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). Analyses used mixed effects models to account for the cluster-crossover design. Patients in the tranexamic acid group received less RBC units compared to those in the placebo group (mean 2.5 units (± 1.43 units) vs. 0.34 units (± 1.86 units) (p<0.01). There was no difference in in-hospital diagnoses of myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Similarly, there was no difference in hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission, hospital survival or 90 day survival between the tranexamic acid and placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery, a hospital policy of tranexamic acid administration reduced red cell transfusion without increasing venous thromboembolism. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others. TRACTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04803747.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".