Anesthesia for noncardiac procedures for children with a Berlin Heart EXCOR® Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report our experience of providing anesthesia for noncardiac procedures in children with in situ Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric ventricular assist devices and to suggest principles of anesthetic management. BACKGROUND: With the initiation of the first North American training and support center for Berlin Heart at our institution in 2006, we have been asked to provide anesthesia for noncardiac procedures to these children. No current anesthetic approach to these children has been reported. METHODS/MATERIALS: Anesthetic records for all noncardiac procedures for children with Berlin Heart between August 2006 and February 2009 in a tertiary care pediatric hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Charts were reviewed for demographic and clinical data, perioperative management, and occurrence of hypotension. RESULTS: Twenty-nine procedures were performed on 11 patients. Hypotension was a common occurrence with all anesthetic induction and maintenance agents even at low doses. Ketamine induction, however, was less likely to produce hypotension, odds ratio for hypotension 0.1333 (95% confidence range 0.021-0.856). Hypotension was responsive to fluid bolus (60%) and alpha-receptor agonists (100%). Preoperative stability and presence of biventricular ventricular assist device (BiVAD) did not predict intraoperative hemodynamic course. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike patients with other ventricular assist devices, these children do not tolerate reductions in systemic vascular resistance (SVR) because of the relatively fixed cardiac output of this device. Agents that reduce SVR should be avoided where possible. Preoperative stability is not predictive. Fluids and alpha-agonists should be first-line response to hypotension in this population. Further study of this unusual population is warranted to further delineate best anesthetic practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".