Left ventricular assist device exchange: the Toronto General Hospital experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As support times for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) become longer, several complications requiring device exchange may occur. To our knowledge, this is the first Canadian report regarding implantable LVAD exchange. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the cases of consecutive, unique patients implanted with an LVAD between June 2006 and October 2015 at Toronto General Hospital. RESULTS: In total, 122 patients were impanted with an LVAD during the study period. Eight patients required LVAD exchange, and 1 patient had 2 replacements (9 of 122, 7.3%). There were 7 HeartMate II (HMII), 1 HVAD and 1 DuraHeart pumps exchanged. Two of these exchanges occurred early at the time of initial implant, whereas 7 occurred late (range 8-623 d). Six exchanges were made owing to pump thrombosis. Of the 3 exchanges made for other causes, 1 HMII exchange was owing to a driveline fracture, 1 DuraHeart patient had early inflow obstruction requiring exchange to HMII at the initial implant, and the third had a suspected inflow obstruction with no evidence of thrombosis at the time of the procedure. The mean support time before exchange was 225 days, and time from exchange to transplant, death or ongoing support was 245 days. Three patients were successfully bridged to transplant, and at the time of data collection 2 were supported awaiting transplant. Three patients died after a mean duration of 394.3 days (range 78-673 d) of support postreplacement. Four cases were successfully performed using a subcostal approach. CONCLUSION: Pump thrombosis is the most common cause for LVAD exchange, which can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The subcostal approach may be the preferred procedure for an HMII exchange when indicated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".