MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963819989 · doi:10.1510/icvts.2007.165795

EuroSCORE directed intraaortic balloon pump placement in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery - retrospective analysis of 267 patients

2008· article· en· W1963819989 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Diez, RE Silber, M. Wachner, M. Stiller, Hans‐Stefan Hofmann

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEuroSCOREPerioperativeCardiac surgeryIntra-aortic balloon pumpCardiologyUnstable anginaEjection fractionInternal medicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCardiogenic shockRetrospective cohort studyAnginaMyocardial infarctionIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingSurgeryHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Intraaortic balloon pump replacement (IABP) is the most widely used circulatory assist device today and is utilized in a wide range of serious cardiovascular conditions. We examined the effects on mortality of pre-, intra-, or postoperative IABP support in patients undergoing cardiac surgery compared to high-risk patients without IABP support. METHODS: Between June 2001 and April 2004, 267 patients either received preoperative IABP support (n=62), an intra- or postoperative IABP (n=113) or had no IABP (n=92). Perioperative mortality was calculated with the EuroSCORE. RESULTS: Patients with preoperative IABP and without IABP support had a lower ejection fraction [37 (29; 50) % and (39 (30; 53)) % vs. (50 (39; 65)) %, P = 0.0001], more frequent unstable angina (38/62 and 53/92 vs. 37/113, P = 0.0004) and recent myocardial infarctions (33/62 and 51/92 vs. 26/113, P = 0.0001). The number of emergency procedures was also significantly higher (36/62 and 65/92 vs. 27/113, P < or = 0.01). Patients with intra-, or postoperative IABP support and patients without IABP support had a longer ICU-stay [7.5 (5; 17.75)) and (7 (5; 15.5)) days vs. (6 (3; 10) days, P = 0.023, P = 0.015]. The overall hospital stay of patients without IABP [18.5 (14; 29) days] and intra-/postoperative IABP support [19, (14; 28) days] were significantly longer (P = 0.007) compared to patients with preoperative support [14 (11.5; 20.5) days]. Whereas we found a trend towards reduced mortality in high-risk non-emergency patients with preoperative support, emergency patients and patients receiving intra- and postoperative support had significantly higher mortality rates than predicted by the EuroSCORE. Both emergency and non-emergency patients without IABP insertion had a significantly higher actual mortality than predicted (29.5% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.03 and 38.1% vs. 26.3%, P < 0.0001). The overall actual mortality between patients with preoperative IABP insertion and patients without preoperative IABP did not significantly differ (14/62 vs. 29/92, P = 0.27). The EuroSCORE proved to be a valid predictor for perioperative mortality among high-risk non-emergency and emergency patients with preoperative IABP support at lower score sums, but failed at higher score sums (>8) and among patients with intra- and postoperative IABP insertion. CONCLUSION: Preoperative IABP support is indicated in high-risk non-emergency patients. The benefit of preoperative IABP insertion in emergency patients and intra- and postoperative IABP support still remains controversial and needs to be elucidated in further prospective, randomized studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgerySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207