MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Bridged to Cardiac Transplantation on Centrifugal Ventricular Assist Devices: A Case Series of the Early Experience of One Canadian Transplant Centre

2004· article· en· W2066750289 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberly Scherr, Louise Jensen, Arvind Koshal

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiogenic shockMedicineBridge to transplantationTransplantationVentricular assist deviceHeart transplantationRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicineSurgeryCardiologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Centrifugal ventricular assist devices (VADs) have been used successfully to bridge patients in cardiogenic shock to cardiac transplantation, though complications are frequent and often life-threatening. PURPOSE: To describe characteristics and examine outcomes of patients bridged to cardiac transplantation on centrifugal VADs. METHODS: A retrospective health record review was conducted on all adults over a 12 year period (N=20) placed on centrifugal VADs with the intent to bridge to cardiac transplantation at a major Canadian transplant centre. RESULTS: Complications of VAD support necessitated removal of 12 patients from the transplant list; seven (35%) survived to cardiac transplantation. Of the seven recipients, five survived to discharge and four remain alive and well. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging patients on centrifugal VADs to cardiac transplantation requires improvement, including maintaining patient stability during the period of early VAD institution, aggressively managing complications of VAD support, and consideration of long-term pulsatile devices. However, if patients survive to transplantation, good long-term outcomes are expected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207