MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061630380

Reducing transfusion while preserving Canada's blood supply: use of tranexamic acid in major non-cardiac surgeries at high-risk of transfusion

2022· dissertation· en· W7061630380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranexamic acidBlood transfusionRandomized controlled trialOrthopedic surgeryPopulationRetrospective cohort studyLogistic regressionBlood product
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) inhibits fibrinolysis and has been shown to consistently reduce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery, where it is now incorporated into standard of care. Its efficacy and safety in other major surgeries at high risk of RBC transfusion is largely unknown. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to inform best practice. If TXA reduces RBC transfusion in this diverse surgical population, it is expected that this inexpensive and widely available medication will be incorporated into routine surgical care. OBJECTIVES: The overall objective was to inform the design and conduct of a registry-based RCT of TXA use to reduce RBC transfusion in major non-cardiac surgery. Specifically, we aimed to define a surgical population at high risk of RBC transfusion, evaluate real-world TXA use and variability in this at-risk population, examine TXA effectiveness, efficacy and safety in our at-risk surgical population and validate key transfusion variables critical to the planned RCT. METHODS: To evaluate surgery-specific RBC transfusion risk and TXA use we completed retrospective cohort studies of adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery at 5 Canadian hospitals between January 2014 and December 2016. Variability in TXA use was further characterized using multivariable logistic regression analyses in 3 common orthopedic surgeries with higher rates of RBC transfusion (>5%) and TXA utilization (>10%). Real-world TXA effectiveness was studied using propensity analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate TXA efficacy and safety. Agreement between RBC transfusion variables was assessed by comparing different measures of RBC transfusion in the patient record, discharge abstract database and transfusion databases. RESULTS: We identified 85 unique non-cardiac surgeries with an RBC transfusion rate ≥ 5%. We observed that prophylactic use of TXA varies widely according to surgical subtype, with limited use outside of orthopedic and spine surgery. We noted that TXA was most commonly administered as a bolus, with a median total dose of 1 gram. Variability in TXA use was higher among surgeries where TXA use was lower. Propensity analysis resulted in mixed results for TXA effectiveness to reduce RBC transfusion among 3 orthopedic surgeries, although methodologic limitations precluded robust interpretation of these results. We meta-analyzed 69 RCTs of TXA use in non-cardiac surgeries at increased risk for RBC transfusion, and found that TXA reduces both the proportion of patients transfused RBCs, as well as the volume of RBCs transfused. TXA use was not associated with differences in deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, although effect estimates were limited by lack of systematic screening and short duration of follow-up. Lastly, there was excellent agreement for documentation of RBC exposure between the patient record and transfusion databases, although agreement decreased with increasing number of RBC units transfused. CONCLUSION: This thesis has comprehensively informed the design and conduct of an RCT evaluating TXA use in non-cardiac surgeries at increased risk for RBC transfusion by informing trial inclusion criteria, equipoise, TXA dosing, outcomes, feasibility and sample size calculations. This trial has the potential to change the standard of care in perioperative medicine in Canada and around the world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→