MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469640479

Implantable ventricular assist devices: is it time to introduce them in Canada?

2000· article· en· W2469640479 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBridge to transplantationTransplantationRandomized controlled trialVentricular assist deviceHeart transplantationPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineCost effectivenessClinical trialBridge (graph theory)Quality of life (healthcare)Emergency medicineHeart failureSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicineRisk analysis (engineering)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used in Europe and the United States. Any decision to use them in Canada requires estimates of their clinical value and costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: No randomized controlled trials are available. Clinical value and costs, concerning principally the HeartMate and Novacor devices, were estimated based on reports of uncontrolled case series obtained through MEDLINE (1993 to 1999), review articles, three technology assessments and data supplied by the manufacturers. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Reasonably trouble-free device function can be expected for three to four years. The principal application is as a bridge to transplantation. Rarely, the heart recovers without transplantation. Use as 'permanent' support of the failing heart is still contentious. Approximately 70% of patients with an implanted LVAD survive until recovery or transplantation. Complications are hemorrhage, principally postoperative, 20% to 44%; thromboembolism, ranging from 5% to 15% for the HeartMate to 12% to 37% for Novacor; and significant infection, 50%. Quality of life is slightly inferior to that of patients with transplanted hearts. The direct cost to the health care system of installation is approximately $138,000. As a bridge to transplantation, the estimated cost effectiveness of elective interventions is $91,000 to $126,000 per life-year saved ($117,000 to $186,000, discounted at 5%), and as a permanent alternative to transplantation, the cost per life-year is $52,000 to $60,000 ($50, 000 to $58,000, discounted at 5%), according to circumstances. As a bridge to 50 transplantations per year, the approximate annual cost would be $7 to $13 million (exclusive of transplantation costs). As 'permanent' support for 7000 patients per year, the approximate cost would be $2,661 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: Limited application in a limited number of centres with collection of all data is justifiable at this stage.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207