MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018948720 · doi:10.1093/ejechocard/jer225

Successful catheter-based occlusion of persistent left-sided superior vena cava draining into the left atrium

2011· article· en· W2018948720 on OpenAlexaff
Sherif Moustafa, David J. Patton, Naeem Merchant, Dylan Taylor, Nanette Alvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreAlberta Children's HospitalCalgary General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSupine positionShunt (medical)Left atriumCardiologyPersistent left superior vena cavaInternal medicineOcclusionCatheterRight-to-left shuntSurgeryCoronary sinusAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 46-year-old woman presented with progressive fatigue. Her past history was remarkable for partial atrio-ventricular septal defect repair at the age of 9 years. Physical examination was notable for obesity, positional desaturation (PaO2 = 92% standing vs. 88% supine) and Grade 2/6 apical pansystolic murmur. Transthoracic echocardiography showed an intact atrial septum and mild mitral regurgitation. Saline contrast injection from the left arm showed prompt filling of both atria with bubbles consistent with a significant extracardiac right-to-left shunt and suggesting communication at the caval level (see Supplementary data online, Video S1). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) demonstrated a persistent left superior vena cava (LSVC) draining into the superior left atrium with a significant right-to-left shunt (flow = 18 mL/beat, Qp:Qs = 0.7). A right SVC (RSVC) connected normally into the right atrium (Figure 1A and B; see Supplementary data online, Video S2). Unfortunately, the patient declined contrast during the CMR study. A subsequent contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography (CCT) confirmed the CMR findings and, additionally, a bridging brachiocephalic vein connecting both RSVC and LSVC at the level of the aortic arch was distinguished (Figure 1C). Cardiac catheterization confirmed the diagnosis (see Supplementary data online, Video S3A and B). Angiographic measurements demonstrated the segment of the LSVC between the bridging vein and the left atrium to be 15 mm in diameter. A 22 mm Amplatzer Vascular Plug II (AGA Medical Corporation, Golden Valley, MN, USA) was successfully deployed in this segment (see Supplementary data online, Video S4A and B). This allowed the venous return from the cerebral circulation to drain through the bridging vein into the RSVC and hence the right atrium. Compared with echocardiography, CMR and CCT offer a wider field of view independent of acoustic windows and provide superb image quality permitting precise detailed assessment of cardiac and extracardiac anatomy including venous structures. Supplementary data are available at European Journal of Echocardiography online. Figure 1 (A) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance coronal view showing the left superior vena cava (white arrow) draining into the left atrium. The right superior vena cava (yellow arrow) is visualized as well (see text for details). (B) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance sagittal view showing the left superior vena cava (white arrow) draining into the left atrium. The left atrial appendage (yellow arrow) is visualized as well. (C) A curved maximum intensity projection image from a gated cardiac computed tomographic study through the chest demonstrates intravenous contrast within the left subclavian vein extending into the left superior vena cava, a patent bridging brachiocephalic vein, and the right superior vena cava. Contrast was injected into the left antecubital vein. LSVC, left superior vena cave; RSVC, right superior vena cava.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207