MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082025781 · doi:10.1177/0267659114547754

Development of our TAVI protocol for emergency initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass

2014· article· en· W2082025781 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassCardiopulmonary resuscitationProtocol (science)Multidisciplinary teamAortic valve replacementChecklistMedical emergencyResuscitationIntensive care medicineSurgeryAnesthesiaCardiologyStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) cases are done in our hybrid operating room with a multidisciplinary team and a primed cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit on pump stand-by. We decided that we would resuscitate all patients undergoing a TAVI procedure via a transfemoral, transapical or transaortic approach, if required. Perfusion plays an essential role in providing rescue CPB for patient salvage when catastrophic complications occur. To coordinate the multidisciplinary effort, we have developed a written safety checklist that assigns a pre-determined role for team members for the rapid sequence initiation of CPB. Although many TAVI patients are not candidates for conventional aortic valve replacements, we feel strongly that rescue CPB should be offered to all TAVI patients to allow the correction of potentially reversible complications. This protocol is included in every surgical "Time Out" involving a TAVI procedure (Figure 1). The protocol has led to rapid and safe CPB initiation in less than five minutes of cardiac arrest. It has also led to a coordinated and consistent team, with pre-specified roles and improved communication. We discuss a case series of four TAVI patients who required emergent use of CPB. The first few cases did not have a written protocol. The experience from these cases led to the development of our protocol. We identified a lack of coordination, wasted movements, unnecessary delayed resuscitation and overall chaos, each of which was targeted for correction with the protocol. We will discuss the merits of the protocol in two recent TAVI cases which required emergent CPB.

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.

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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.357 · 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