Minimal-Access Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is typically implanted through a full sternotomy on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) modifications include multiple smaller incisions, using "virgin" territory, and minimized CPB time. METHODS: Forty-two LVAD implantations were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-five minimally invasive implantations (MIS, 20 HeartMate II and 5 HeartWare) were compared with 17 sternotomy implantations (12 HeartMate II and 5 HeartWare). The choice of MIS incisions was device dependent: (1) three separate incisions for the HeartMate II or (2) two incisions for the HeartWare device. Four HeartWare LVADs were implanted off-pump (three using the MIS approach). RESULTS: The median patient age was 52 years (range, 18-69 years). Overall survival was 81% at a mean (SD) follow-up of 495 (375) days. Thirty-day mortality was 9.5% (one MIS and three sternotomy patients). Five patients (11.9%) died while on LVAD, 18 (42.9%) underwent transplantation, 6 (14.3%) underwent weaning and explantation, and 13 (31.0%) remained on support. Preoperative ventilatory and circulatory supports were more common in the sternotomy group. The MIS patients had shorter CPB time [51.4 (34.9) vs 83.6 (40.4) minutes, P = 0.014] and showed a trend toward lower red blood cell and platelet transfusion requirement. The durations of hospitalization, inotropic support, intensive care unit stay, and LVAD support were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery LVAD implantation is feasible. The shorter CPB duration and off-pump approach may be advantageous. Avoiding sternotomy may also reduce adhesions encountered during subsequent cardiac transplantation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".