MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 17066: Indications for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Placement in Pediatric Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2018· article· en· W2953479797 on OpenAlexaff
Ramiro W. Lizano Santamaria, Chun‐Po Steve Fan, Kyle Runeckles, Lars Grosse‐Wortmann, Elizabeth A. Stephenson, Lee Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyCardiologyInternal medicineVentricular tachycardiaVentricular fibrillationImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorSudden cardiac deathVentricular outflow tractTachycardiaCardiomyopathySudden deathHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in children and adolescents with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Implantable cardio-defibrillators (ICD) are highly effective in preventing SCD, however, indications for ICD placement in the young is mainly guided from the adult experience. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single institution study of all children with HCM who had an ICD implanted from July 1999 through February 2016. Results: Thirty-three patients were identified. The mean age at ICD placement was 12.3±3 years with a mean follow up of 3.6±2.5 years. The mean maximal septal wall thickness Z score was 9.3± 2.9 and mean peak LV outflow tract gradient 17±12 mmHg. The median number of indications for ICD placement per patient was 3 (21%, 52%, 15% and 12% of the patients had 2, 3, 4 and 5 indications respectively). The most common indications were: severe HCM (Z-score ≥ + 6) (84%), abnormal blood pressure response to exercise (51%) and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (27%). Using the European Society of Cardiology HCM SCD risk calculator, the 5-year SCD risk was highest when the indication was ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, no patient with VT received ICD therapy (shock or anti tachycardia pacing (ATP)) during the study period. Fifteen patients received ICD therapy; 73% appropriately (73% a shock, 9% ATP and 18% both). Inappropriate shocks were delivered to 67% of the patients. One patient had slow rate VT (below the therapy zone) and one patient had ventricular fibrillation that did not elicit ICD therapy and required external defibrillation. The incidence rate ratios for appropriate ICD therapy were higher when the indication for the ICD placement was LGE (3.69), severe HCM (2.3) or compound heterozygosity (1.2) p <0.05. The majority of patients (>95%) were alive and free of transplant at 1 and 5 years after ICD placement. Conclusions: The risk stratification and selection of patients for ICD placement in the pediatric population is challenging. LGE, severe HCM and compound heterozygosity are associated with higher rate of appropriate ICD therapy. Optimal functioning of the ICD device in children and adolescents is difficult. The overall immediate survival and freedom from transplant is excellent.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→