Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Using Impella Devices for Decompensated Cardiogenic Shock: A Pediatric Heart Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in children with heart failure. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may be an additional tool to augment left heart support and decompression in addition to conventional therapies. This report aims to review the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of the Impella device at a pediatric center. A retrospective review of all implants between October 2014 and November 2016 was conducted. Clinical outcomes, device implant techniques, complications, and hemodynamic data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed on hemodynamic and echocardiographic data. There were 10 Impella device placements in 8 patients with a median age of 17 years (6.5-25) and support duration of 8 days (1-21). Implant diagnosis included 5 patients with either posttransplant rejection or allograft vasculopathy, 2 patients with myocarditis, and 1 patient with refractory ventricular tachycardia. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was required in 4 patients. Significant reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressures/left atrial pressures (p = 0.031) and increase in near infrared spectroscopy (p = 0.039) was seen pre- and post-Impella implant. All patients survived to discharge from the intensive care unit with one late death. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support is a viable option in experienced pediatric centers as a mode to augment cardiac output or to decompress the left heart in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or with cardiogenic shock.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".