Clinical outcomes of a combined transcatheter and minimally invasive atrial septal defect repair program using a 'Heart Team' approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contemporary transcatheter and minimally invasive approaches allow for improved cosmesis and eliminate sternotomy; however, access to a 'Heart Team' approach to minimally invasive atrial septal defect (ASD) repair remains limited in Canada. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all minimally invasive atrial septal defect repairs performed between 2009 and 2017 at a quaternary cardiac care centre were included. We compared residual shunt, functional status, periprocedural complications, and hospital lengths-of-stay between patients undergoing transcatheter and minimally invasive endoscopic ASD repair. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, 61 consecutive patients underwent ASD repair at a single centre: 28 patients underwent transcatheter closure (64.3% female; median age 57, interquartile range 43-70.5) and 33 patients underwent minimally invasive endoscopic repair (72.7% female; median age 37, interquartile range 24-50). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups with the exception of transcatheter patients having smaller defect size (1.65 cm versus 2.35 cm, p = 0.002). Procedural success was 93% (26/28) and 100% (33/33) for transcatheter and minimally invasive groups (p = 0.21), respectively. Periprocedural complications were similarly low between the two groups with the exception of longer hospital length-of-stay in the surgical patients (5 days vs 1 day, p < 0.0001). Over a follow-up period (transcatheter: 0.5-56.5 months, surgical: 0.25-89 months), there was no difference in residual shunt (14.3% versus 6.1%, p = 0.4) or NYHA I Functional Class (88.5% versus 96.9%, p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Transcatheter and minimally invasive approaches to ASD repair are safe and feasible in selected patients using a 'Heart Team' approach and represent attractive alternatives to median sternotomy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".