MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117662087 · doi:10.1155/jocs/5324660

Effects of RBT‐1 on the Occurrence of Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

2025· article· en· W7117662087 on OpenAlexaff
Charles A. Mack, Michael E. Jessen, Andrew Shaw, Stacey Ruiz, Chao Wang, Steven Snapinn, Bhupinder Singh, André Lamy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiopulmonary bypassCardiac surgeryIntensive care unitIncidence (geometry)PlaceboClinical trialRandomized controlled trialCoronary artery bypass surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Approximately two‐thirds of patients undergoing cardiac surgery experience postoperative complications, which may lead to significant clinical consequences. RBT‐1, an investigational drug with anti‐inflammatory and antioxidant properties, elicits a preconditioning response and was shown to improve clinical outcomes when administered within 24–48 hours prior to surgery (modified intention‐to‐treat population). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of RBT‐1 in reducing postoperative complications in the entire study population without excluding patients based on when surgery occurred relative to study drug administration. Methods A total of 135 patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of RBT‐1 ( n = 91) or placebo ( n = 44) at least 1 day before undergoing nonemergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and were followed for 90 days postsurgery. Clinical outcomes assessed included ventilator time, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), cardiopulmonary readmission, and other clinical events of interest. Results In this analysis, RBT‐1 reduced ventilator time, ICU, and hospital LOS by 0.98 days (NS), 2.59 days ( p = 0.026), and 1.35 days (NS), respectively, compared with placebo. The incidence of 30‐day cardiopulmonary readmission was significantly reduced by RBT‐1 (4.6% vs. 17.5%, placebo; p = 0.035). Additionally, RBT‐1 showed a trend in reductions in several clinical events of interest, including anemia, atrial fibrillation, and fluid overload. Conclusions Trends in improved clinical outcomes were seen with RBT‐1 treatment in this post hoc analysis that included all patients enrolled in a Phase 2 clinical study regardless of surgery delay beyond 2 days posttreatment. A Phase 3 study is underway to confirm these improved clinical outcomes in a larger study population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06021457

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac SurgerySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207