Procedural characteristics and adverse events in diagnostic and interventional catheterisations in paediatric and adult CHD: initial report from the IMPACT Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report procedural characteristics and adverse events on data collected in the registry. BACKGROUND: The IMPACT--IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment--Registry is a catheterisation registry of paediatric and adult patients with CHD undergoing diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterisation. We are reporting the procedural characteristics and adverse events of patients undergoing diagnostic and interventional catheterisation procedures from January, 2011 to March, 2013. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, procedural, and institutional data elements were collected at the participating centres and entered via either a web-based platform or software provided by American College of Cardiology-certified vendors, and were collected in a secure, centralised database. Centre participation was voluntary. RESULTS: During the time frame of data collection, 19,797 procedures were entered into the IMPACT Registry. Procedures were classified as diagnostic only (35.4%); one of six specific interventions (23.8%); other or multiple interventions (40.7%); and were further broken down into four age groups. Anaesthesia was used in 84.1% of diagnostic procedures and 87.8% of interventional ones. Adverse events occurred in 10.0% of diagnostic and 11.1% of interventional procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT Registry is gathering data to set national benchmarks for diagnostic and certain specific interventional procedures. We are seeing little differences in procedural characteristics or adverse events in diagnostic procedures compared with interventional procedures overall, but there is significant variation in adverse events amongst age categories. Risk stratification and patient acuity scores will be required for further analysis of these differences.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".