Does the Type of Ventricular Assisted Device Influence Survival, Infection, and Rejection Rates Following Heart Transplantation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of the type of left ventricular assisted device (LVAD) as predictor of survival, hospitalizations due to infection, and rejection following heart transplantation and to delineate any further predictors of such outcomes. METHODS: Patients who received a left ventricular assist device (HeartMate [Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, CA, USA] or Novacor [World Heart Corporation, Ottawa, Canada]) as a bridge to heart transplantation between October 1991 and June 2004 using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Thoracic Registry database were evaluated. Comparison of survival curves between HeartMate and Novacor was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival method and Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for patient demographics and co-morbidities. Infection and rejection rates between the two devices were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: The UNOS database provided 1255 patients with HeartMate and 154 patients with Novacor between 1991 and 2004. Unadjusted one- and five-year survivals for HeartMate and Novacor were 0.84 and 0.80 and 0.72 and 0.56, respectively, following heart transplantation. Adjusting for patient demographics and co-morbidities, no statistical significant difference in one-year survival was observed between those who received HeartMate and Novacor (HR = 1.49, p = 0.127). At five years, however, the HeartMate group had higher survival than Novacor (HR = 1.53, p = 0.043). All-time posttransplant hospitalizations due to infection and rejection were similar between HeartMate and Novacor recipients after adjusting for patient case mix. CONCLUSION: Controlling for patient case mix, there was no survival difference at one year between those who received Novacor versus HeartMate LVAD. At five years, a Novacor bridge to transplant patient on average had statistically significantly lower survival than HeartMate recipients. No difference in infection and rejection were observed.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".