Aortic Arch Reconstruction: Safety of Moderate Hypothermia and Antegrade Cerebral Perfusion During Systemic Circulatory Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The ideal strategy for cerebral protection during aortic arch (AA) reconstructive surgery remains undefined. Antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) during systemic circulatory arrest (SCA) may provide superior results; however, optimal systemic temperature is undetermined. Our objective was to determine whether "deep" hypothermia is necessary during ACP with SCA, and whether the degree of hypothermia is associated with neurologic outcomes postoperatively. METHODS: Retrospective series of 72 consecutive patients (aged 65.9 +/- 3.2 years) who underwent AA reconstructive surgery at Vancouver General Hospital using a cerebral protection strategy of ACP with SCA between December 1995 and December 2002. Patients were divided into two groups according to lowest systemic temperature: <22 degrees C (n = 52) and > or =22 degrees C (n = 20). RESULTS: ACP was via right axillary or innominate artery, +/- left common carotid cannulation. Median SCA time with ACP was not different between groups. There were four hospital deaths (5.6%) (three from the <22 degrees C group). Eight patients (11.2%) had major neurologic injuries (seven from the <22 degrees C group): 4 (5.6%) permanent (1 fatal) and 4 (5.6%) temporary. There was a trend toward a significantly higher incidence of delirium in the <22 degrees C group than the > or =22 degrees C group (30.8 vs 10.0%, respectively, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, SCA with ACP was a safe technique for AA reconstructive surgery. The observation of a larger number of major neurologic injuries, and a trend toward a higher incidence of delirium in the <22 degrees C group, suggests that systemic temperatures below 22 degrees C may not be necessary and may be associated with a higher incidence of neurologic injury when using ACP during SCA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".