MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 11760: The Outcomes of Children Implanted With Ventricular Assist Devices in the US: First Analysis of the Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (PediMACS)

2014· article· en· W1533657654 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth D. Blume, David N. Rosenthal, Joseph W. Rossano, J.T. Baldwin, Pirooz Eghtesady, David L.S. Morales, Ryan S. Cantor, Jennifer Conway, Christopher S. Almond, David C. Naftel, James K. Kirklin

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular assist deviceHeart failureImplantArtificial heartCardiomyopathyEtiologyHeart diseaseAdverse effectSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Use of pediatric mechanical circulatory support to decrease mortality has expanded dramatically. A national account of the use of FDA-approved devices in children is essential to understanding outcomes, refining patient selection, and improving quality of care. METHODS: PediMACs is an NIH-supported national registry for FDA-approved temporary and durable VAD usage in patients < 18 years of age. Between the launch in Sept 2012 and March 2014, 32 US hospitals enrolled patients. This first report of data from this registry analyzed pre-implant patient characteristics, survival using competing outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty pediatric pts underwent 153 VAD implantations. Etiology of heart disease included 87 (67%) pts with cardiomyopathy, 26 (20%) with congenital heart disease. Twenty pts transitioned from ECMO and 37 had prior cardiac surgery. Most pts were Intermacs level 1 (28%) and level 2 (55%) at implant, with 12% Intermacs level 3. There were 26 temporary devices. Of the durable devices, 65 (51%) were pulsatile and 62 (49%) continuous flow (CF) (compared to adult Intermacs implants: 4% pulsatile, 96% CF). Age at first implant included 22 pts (17%) < 1 yr of age, 23 (18%) 1-5 yrs, 26 (20%) 6-10 yrs and 59 (45%) 10-18 yrs. Patients were supported with LVAD alone in 99 (76%), BiVAD in 24 (18%) and total artificial heart in 2 (2%) and represented 484 months of follow-up. The 104 patients receiving primary durable devices had an actuarial survival of 90% at 6 mos. Competing risk analysis at 6 mos revealed 54% of pts transplanted, 37% alive on support, 8 % died and 1 % recovery. In the overall cohort, there were 8 early (<1mo) and 5 late deaths. Reported serious adverse events included infection (42), bleeding (40), device malfunction (37) and neurologic dysfunction (33). CONCLUSIONS: Pedimacs constitutes the largest single data repository with detailed information of pediatric pts implanted with all types of VADs. Initial data show a higher rate of use of pulsatile devices as compared to contemporaneous adult data. Survival rates are excellent despite varying patient characteristics and pump types. With further data collection, analysis of patient risk factors critical to improving outcomes will be possible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207