Outcomes With Ventricular Assist Device Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Pediatric Heart Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has long been the sole means of mechanical support for pediatric patients with end-stage cardiac failure, but has a high waitlist mortality and a reported survival to hospital discharge of less than 50%. The purpose of this study was to compare waitlist mortality and survival for ECMO versus ventricular assist device (VAD) support. A review was conducted of all patients listed for heart transplantation (HTx) since 2002 and requiring mechanical support. VAD support has been available from 2004 (Berlin Heart Excor Pediatrics). Competing risks analysis was used to model survival to one of four outcomes (HTx, death on waitlist, delisting, improvement). Thirty-six patients were on mechanical support while awaiting HTx (21 ECMO, 12 VAD, three both). Median age at listing was 1.2 years (birth-16.6 years) for ECMO and 11.3 years (0.3-14.6 years) for VAD. Diagnosis was cardiomyopathy in 33% for ECMO and 93% for VAD. Median time to HTx was 37 days (1-930) overall, 20 days (1-85) for ECMO, and 39 days (5-108) for VAD. Mechanical support was associated with increased odds of HTx (hazard ratio [HR] 2.4 [1.7-3.3], P < 0.0001) but also delisting or death waiting (HR 3.0 [1.1-7.8], P = 0.03). Waitlist mortality of 38% on ECMO was reduced to 13% with VAD use. Survival post-HTx to hospital discharge was better in the group on VAD support (92 vs. 80%). Pediatric patients requiring mechanical support as a bridge to HTx have short wait times but high waitlist mortality. Those patients who survived to be put on the Berlin Heart Excor Pediatric device based on individualized clinical decision making then had a lower waitlist mortality, a longer duration of support, and a higher survival to transplantation and hospital discharge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".