Quality of Red Blood Cells Using Autotransfusion Devices: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell salvage devices are routinely used to process and wash red blood cells (RBCs) shed during surgical interventions. Although the principle theory of cell saving is the same, the actual process to achieve this is very different from one device to another. The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of washed, concentrated RBC produced by five very different cell-saving devices, specifically the Cobe BRAT 2, Medtronic Sequestra 1000, Haemonetics Cell Saver 5, Medtronic Autolog, and the Fresenius CATS. Reservoir and washed red blood cells were analyzed for hematocrit (Hct), platelets (PLT), leukocytes (WBC), potassium (K+), heparin, plasma-free hemoglobin (PFH), RBC mass recovery and recovery rate. The Haemonetics and BRAT 2 had the highest RBC recovery. All devices adequately removed heparin and potassium. The Medtronic Autolog had the highest removal of platelets and PFH; whereas, the BRAT had the lowest. Although the Autolog had the highest leukocyte removal, leukocytes were not adequately washed out by any of the autotransfusion devices. In conclusion, although all cell-saving devices use the same theory of centrifugation, the actual quality of the washed RBC product differs widely from one device to another.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".