Mechanical circulatory support for adolescent patients: the Ottawa Heart Institute experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support devices may be used for patients with end-stage heart failure for bridging either to cardiac transplant or to recovery of the native heart. While less common in adolescents, fulminant heart failure may be rapidly fatal in these patients unless circulatory support can be instituted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcomes and the utility of mechanical circulatory assist devices for children. METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients (18 years of age or younger) who underwent circulatory support at the Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, from 1992 to 2001 was performed using chart audits. RESULTS: Seven patients (four boys, three girls) with a mean age of 14.9 +/- 0.9 years were supported with Thoratec ventricular assist devices (n=6) or a CardioWest total artificial heart (n=1). Preoperatively, the cardiac index was 1.64 +/- 0.2 L/min/m2 on one or two inotropes with ejection fractions of 11 +/- 2.2%. Mean duration of circulatory support was 59.3 +/- 17.2 days with a hospital length of stay of 89.6 +/- 12.8 days. All seven patients underwent successful transplantation and were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients with fulminant heart failure may be bridged to cardiac transplant successfully with mechanical circulatory support devices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".