Characteristics and safety of interventions and procedures performed during catheterisation of patients with congenital heart disease: early report from the national cardiovascular data registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to report procedural characteristics and adverse events on the data collected in the IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment registry. BACKGROUND: The IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment- registry is a catheterisation registry focussed on paediatric and adult patients with congenital heart disease who are undergoing diagnostic catheterisations and catheter-based interventions. This study reports procedural characteristics and adverse events of patients who have undergone selected catheterisation procedures from January, 2011 to June, 2013. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, procedural, and institutional data elements were collected at participating centres and entered via either a web-based platform or software provided by the American College of Cardiology-certified vendors, and were collected in a secure, centralised database. For the purpose of this study, procedures that were not classified as one of the 'core' IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment procedures originally chosen for additional data collection were identified and selected for further data analysis. RESULTS: During the time frame of data collection, a total of 8021 cases were classified as other procedures and/or multiple procedures. The most commonly performed case types - isolated or in combination with other procedures - were right ventricular biopsy in 3433 (42.8%), conduit/MPA interventions in 979 (12.3%), and systemic pulmonary artery collateral occlusion in 601 (7.5%). For the whole cohort, adverse events of any severity occurred in 957 (12.0%) cases, whereas major adverse events occurred in 113 (1.4%) cases; six patients (0.1%) died in the catheterisation laboratory. CONCLUSIONS: The IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment registry has provided important data on the frequency and spectrum of cardiac catheterisation procedures performed in the present era. For many procedures, more data and work are needed to identify more subtle differences between case categories, especially as it relates to the incidence of major adverse events, and to further develop a risk-adjustment methodology to allow equitable comparisons among institutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".