MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3087012772 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2020.08.062

Commentary: Sometimes there is a simpler route!

2020· editorial· en· W3087012772 sur OpenAlex
Mevlüt Çelik, Simon Maltais

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJTCVS Techniques · 2020
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Établissements canadiensCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVentricular outflow tractMedicineAscending aortaVentricular assist deviceCardiologyInternal medicineAortaSurgeryHeart failure

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Central MessageLeft axillary–right axillary outflow tract grafting for left ventricular assist device implantation is feasible; simpler or more reproducible options should be considered for high-risk patients.See Article page 197. Left axillary–right axillary outflow tract grafting for left ventricular assist device implantation is feasible; simpler or more reproducible options should be considered for high-risk patients. See Article page 197. Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is an established treatment modality for patients with terminal heart failure. Correct positioning of the outflow-graft is one of the key factors for determining the long-term outcome of patients.1Adamson R.M. Mangi A.A. Kormos R.L. Farrar D.J. Dembitsky W.P. Principles of HeartMate II implantation to avoid pump malposition and migration.J Card Surg. 2015; 30: 296-299Crossref PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar Graft malposition can increase turbulence, effect pump performance, and increase subsequent risk of pump thrombosis or cerebrovascular complications.2Schmitto J.D. Avsar M. Haverich A. Increase in left ventricular assist device thrombosis.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 1463-1464Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar,3Benk C. Mauch A. Beyersdorf F. Klemm R. Russe M. Blanke P. et al.Effect of cannula position in the thoracic aorta with continuous left ventricular support: four-dimensional flow-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging in an in vitro model.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 44: 551-558Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar The main site of outflow graft placement, the ascending aorta, has been widely studied.4Aliseda A. Chivukula V.K. McGah P. Prisco A.R. Beckman J.A. Garcia G.J. et al.LVAD outflow graft angle and thrombosis risk.ASAIO J. 2017; 63: 14-23Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar Advancements in alternative implant strategies, combined with miniaturization of the technology, have broadened the strategy for outflow graft placement to major arteries such as the descending aorta, the innominate, the subclavian, or even the axillary artery.5Doersch K.M. Tong C.W. Gongora E. Konda S. Sareyyupoglu B. Temporary left ventricular assist device through an axillary access is a promising approach to improve outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock patients.ASAIO J. 2015; 61: 253-258Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar, 6Makdisi G. Wang I.W. Minimally invasive is the future of left ventricular assist device implantation.J Thorac Dis. 2015; 7: E283-E288PubMed Google Scholar, 7Maltais S. Davis M.E. Haglund N. Minimally invasive and alternative approaches for long-term LVAD placement: the Vanderbilt strategy.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 3: 563-569PubMed Google Scholar, 8El-Sayed Ahmed M.M. Aftab M. Singh S.K. Mallidi H.R. Frazier O.H. Left ventricular assist device outflow graft: alternative sites.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 3: 541-545PubMed Google Scholar In this issue of the Journal, Tucker and colleagues9Tucker D.L. Perry J. Bock A. Douglas A. Albert C. Kirksey L. et al.Left ventricular assist device implantation with axillary–axillary outflow graft.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Tech. 2020; 4: 197-199Google Scholar report the results of LVAD implantation with a novel alternative approach, the left axillary–right axillary arterial bypass (LARAAB) graft. In a minimally invasive setting, LARAAB was performed in a patient with a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent LVAD implantation for cardiogenic shock. The peculiarity of the described case lies in the fact that the previously placed outflow graft on the left axillary artery did not result in postoperative hemodynamic improvement whereas there was no notable anatomic obstruction. The patient required increasing vasopressor support caused by insufficient LVAD outflow and decision for reoperation was made. During reconstruction, the LVAD did not tolerate partial side clamping, and no anastomotic reconstruction on the graft itself could have been made, and this variant, LARAAB, was performed. The Latin proverb Aut viam inveniam aut faciam (“I shall either find a way or make one”) appropriately describes the authors' creative ability to tackle this case, and the authors further opt LARAAB to be a feasible treatment strategy in case of porcelain ascending aorta, unattainable descending aorta, and small calibre axillary artery. Although this creative strategy can potentially be of additive value in the armamentarium of the cardiothoracic surgeon, several issues can arise, and we question the need for such an extension of a previously described strategy. When do we stop and plan a standard sternotomy intervention, refer the patient for greater-risk heart transplantation, or simply do not offer the LVAD intervention? What is the long-term outcome of such a strategy? If this technique is applicable in specific patients, how should we determine the right patient for this strategy? New complications will occur, especially with 2 grafts. In the postoperative low-output setting, how would we preoperatively adequately identify the culprit in case of LARAAB? Little is known about optimal placement, metric, rheology of flow, and appropriate dimensions of the graft for optimal postoperative hemodynamic results. The availability of multiple alternative surgical techniques in the armamentarium of the surgeon requires careful tailoring to the need of the patient. While the presented LARAAB intervention was performed with success, we caution our surgical community to start widely applying this technique and to look for other options. Sometimes there is a simpler route to help the cat get some milk. Left ventricular assist device implantation with axillary–axillary outflow graftJTCVS TechniquesVol. 4PreviewLeft ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are used for patients with end-stage heart disease either as a bridge to transplant or as destination therapy. Although the most common configuration is LV apex to ascending aorta through a sternotomy, patient anatomy and clinical circumstances may necessitate alternative configurations.1 Herein, we describe a novel alternative approach to augment LVAD flow with a left axillary–right axillary arterial bypass graft (LARAAB). Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle