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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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