Initial Experience with a New Right Ventricular Support Device for Beating Heart Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Device supported beating heart surgery has been advocated to extend patient selection criteria for off-pump surgery. This article reports the initial experimental and clinical results with a novel paracardial right ventricular support device. METHODS: Preclinical experiments were performed in two pigs. Ten elective patients with triple vessel disease were subjected to beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting surgery during right ventricular support by the paracardial device. Measurements included intraoperative hemodynamics during cardiac tilting, perioperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), hemolysis parameters, mortality and major morbidity events. RESULTS: A mean of 3.2 +/- 0.2 distal anastomoses per patient were performed. Mean arterial pressure and central venous oxygen saturation remained stable during cardiac tilting. Perioperative LVEF did not vary significantly. Sixty-day mortality and postoperative infarction rate were 0%. Functional Canadian Cardiovascular Society class at 6 days after surgery was 1.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.2 pre-operatively. CONCLUSION: In this initial clinical experience, application of the novel paracardial right ventricular support device proved to be safe and efficient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".