Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation bridge to adult heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can rescue some critical patients with circulatory collapse when intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and ventricular assist devices (VAD) are not suitable. A subset of these patients can use ECMO for direct bridging, or indirect double bridging via VAD to heart transplantation (HTx). For these patients, we identified risk factors for unsuccessful ECMO bridging, with survival to receiving either HTx or VAD as the measure of success. The characteristics evaluated were age, sex, body mass index, pre-ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), IABP use, dialysis use, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and the etiology of cardiomyopathy. From January 1995 to August 2007, there were 70 adult ECMO patients with the intent to bridge to HTx (male: 55, age: 46 +/- 14 yr). Thirty-one patients (44%) were successful in bridging. A stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age > 50 yr (p = 0.003), pre-ECMO CPR (p = 0.001) and SOFA score > 10 at ECMO initiation (p = 0.018) were significant independent predictors of unsuccessful bridging. Direct VAD implantation, if possible, is preferable to double bridging in patients over 50 yr. Also, elective ECMO support before hemodynamic deterioration to cardiac arrest or multiple organ dysfunction would improve rates of successful ECMO bridging.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".