Left Ventricular Epicardial Lead Implantation via Left Minithoracotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The transvenous placement of left ventricular epicardial leads is limited by long procedure times, high procedural failure rates and limited sites for lead placement. Open surgical approaches are used primarily after failure of the transvenous approach but provide additional important benefits. This study assesses the surgical outcomes of left anterior minithoracotomy for the implantation of left ventricular epicardial pacing leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy. METHODS: Eleven patients were referred for open left ventricular epicardial lead placement. Mean patient age was 66.2 (59-77) years. The patients had New York Heart Association class III (II-IV) heart failure, a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 18 +/- 5 % and mean QRS duration of 177 +/- 29 milliseconds. RESULTS: Left ventricular epicardial leads were successfully placed in all patients. Mean surgery time was 101 +/- 33 minutes and intraoperative lead parameters were: R wave 14.5 +/- 9.8 millivolts, lead threshold 1.4 +/- 0.9 volts at 0.5 milliseconds, impedance 1127 +/- 693 ohms. Impedance was statistically different at 40 +/- 25 weeks with 571 +/- 199 ohms ( P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular epicardial lead implantation via left anterior minithoracotomy is safe and effective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".