MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Twenty-Seven Percent of Children with Congenital Heart Disease Have a Thrombotic Event Detected in the Post Operative Period: A Prospective Cohort Study.

2007· article· en· W2583344781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley Mitchell, Patricia Massicotte, Shehla Qayyum, Ivan M. Rebeyka, David B. Ross, Ravi Bhargava, Mary Bauman, Karina Black

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombosisProspective cohort studyCohortHeart diseasePediatricsVenous thrombosisIncidence (geometry)Cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Only recently, thromboembolic events have emerged as one of the most serious and frequent secondary complications to occur in children who, with modern therapy, are surviving previously life-threatening diseases. One of the most common primary disorders is congenital heart disease (CHD), accounting for approximately 1/3 of children presenting with thrombosis. However, rigorous determination of the actual prevalence in order to establish how pervasive this newly appreciated thromboembolic disease is in children with CHD is lacking. The current standard of practice in children with CHD is not to use anticoagulants for primary prophylaxis, predominantly because of the lack of firm data on prevalence of thrombosis. The primary objective of the current study was to determine the incidence of thrombosis in children with CHD in the post operative period. The secondary objective was to determine clinical risk factors for thrombosis. STUDY DESIGN. A prospective cohort of non-selected children undergoing surgical intervention for CHD at Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Canada. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, children had to be planned to undergo cardiopulmonary bypass and too have a central venous line placed. All patients were screened for thrombosis by ultrasound in either the upper or lower venous system depending on the location of the central venous line and echocardiogram of the heart. Testing was performed on children in the post operative period when the patients were stable and after the central venous line was removed. Clinically significant thrombosis was defined as thrombi greater than 3mm. Demographic data on the cohort where collected prospectively. The study was reviewed by the ethics board and informed consent was obtained from all guardians and/or children. RESULTS: A total of 128 children were recruited, median age 10 months (range 0.23–192) 44% were females and 70% were Caucasian. A total of 63 children (49%) had evidence of a thrombosis, but some of the thrombi were small, non occlusive and considered clinically nonsignificant. However, 34 patients 27% (95% Confidence Interval 19%-35%) had evidence of a thrombotic event with significant occlusion that required therapeutic anticoagulant therapy. Fifty percent of thrombosis was in the right internal jugular reflecting the primary location of the central venous line. Children with clinically significant thrombosis were younger and had more complex underlying cardiac disorders (see table below). CONCLUSION: There is a significant incidence of thrombosis in children with CHD in the post operative period. Younger children and children with complex cardiac disorders are at increased risk. Carefully designed clinical trials of prevention are urgently needed. Risk factors for thrombosis Thrombosis Positive (n=34) Thrombosis negative (n=94) Age (months) 6 (1–168) 28 (0.23–192) UNDERLYING DIAGNOSIS Single Ventrical 35% (n=12) 16%(n=15) Transposition of the great arteries 9% (n=3) 3% (n=3) Tetraology of Fallot 23% (n=8) 11% (n=10) Venticular Septal defect 3% (n=1) 18% (n=17) Arterial Septal defect 6% (n=2) 20% (n=19) Other 23% (n=8) 32% (n=30)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→