MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396967668

Implantation of permanent pacemakers in the electrophysiology laboratory: what it has changed in a general teaching hospital.

2000· article· en· W2396967668 on OpenAlexaffabout
Franck Molin, Paul S. Page, Lysanne Daoust

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryComplicationPermanent pacemaker
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Analysis of surveys concerning current practice in pacemaker implantation has shown a difference between the United States and Canada: almost 70% of pacemakers are implanted in the operating room (OR) by surgeons in Canada, while in the United States, 70% of the implantations are done in a catheterization laboratory. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact (in terms of complications, time on the waiting list, length of hospitalization and costs) of moving surgery from the OR to the electrophysiology laboratory (EPL) in a 450-bed Canadian teaching hospital. Data were collected on 100 consecutive implantations in the OR and, subsequently, on 100 procedures in the EPL. RESULTS: The populations were identical in age (68+/-18 and 69+/-18 years, respectively) and sex ratio (both groups were 58% male). The implantation technique differed: the subclavian approach was used in 73% of patients in the OR group and in 99% of those in the EPL group. Antibiotic prophylaxis was given to all patients. The dual chamber rate was 22% in the OR group and 28% in the EPL group. Complication rates were similar in the two groups. Eleven per cent of procedures in the OR group and 46% in the EPL group were elective. For patients who underwent nonelective surgery, the time from indication to implantation was reduced from 3.3+/-2.6 days in the OR group to 1. 9+/-1.8 days in the EPL group (P=0.0005), and the total stay in hospital was 10.2+/-7.4 days and 6.9+/-7.8 days, respectively (P=0. 01). For both elective and nonelective surgery, the total stay in hospital was 9.2+/-7.4 days in the OR group and 4.2+/-6.4 days in the EPL group (P<0.00001). The overall cost reduction, taking into account an arbitrary earlier discharge in the EPL group, was almost 50%. CONCLUSIONS: In this general teaching hospital, moving pacemaker implantation surgery from the OR to the EPL was safe and reduced by almost 50% the hospitalization stay by reducing the delay before implantation and by allowing elective surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207