Management and outcomes of left ventricular assist device-associated endocarditis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated endocarditis remains poorly studied, especially in newer continuous-flow LVADs (CF-LVADs). The aim of this review was to assess outcomes of patients with LVAD-associated endocarditis, as stratified by CF-LVAD and pulsatile LVAD (P-LVAD) use as well as by different interventions and pathogen types. Methods: An electronic search was performed to identify studies in the English literature on LVAD-associated endocarditis. Results: Overall, 16 articles with 26 patients were included; seven had CF-LVADs and 19 had P-LVADs; time to development of endocarditis was 91 days (152 vs. 65 days, respectively, P=0.05). Eleven of 25 patients were treated with antibiotics only. Remaining 14 patients received antibiotics, however, they also underwent additional surgical intervention. One patient was treated with embolization alone for mycotic aneurysm and was therefore excluded. At a median follow-up time of 344 days post implant, there was no difference in overall mortality between CF-LVAD and P-LVAD-associated endocarditis patients (57.9% vs. 42.9%, P=0.81). Patients who underwent additional surgical intervention had higher overall survival compared to those treated with antibiotics alone (71.4% vs. 27.3%, P=0.07); with no difference in outcomes amongst those who underwent surgical device exchange as compared to heart transplantation (80.0% vs. 66.7%; P=0.23) Conclusions: Compared to patients with P-LVADs, CF-LVAD patients appeared to be resistant to early development of LVAD-associated endocarditis. There was a trend towards high survival observed amongst patients who underwent additional surgical intervention as compared to those treated with antibiotics alone, with no difference amongst surgical device exchange as compared to heart transplantation. Advantages of additional surgical intervention vs. medical therapy alone deserves further exploration to determine its applicability in CF-LVADs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".