Permanent pacemaker implantation in pediatric heart transplant recipients: A systematic review and evidence quality assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bradyarrhythmias are a common complication following pediatric OHT and may require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM). The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of children undergoing PPM implantation following OHT. A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library (end-of-search date: January 27, 2019). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool were used to assess the quality of cohort studies and case reports, respectively. We analyzed data from a total of 11 studies recruiting 7198 pediatric patients who underwent heart transplant. PPM implantation was performed in 1.9% (n = 137/7,198; 95% CI: 1.6-2.2) of the patients. Most patients underwent dual-chamber pacing (46%, 95% CI: 32.6-59.7). Male-to-female ratio was 1.3:1. Mean patient age at the time of OHT was 10.1 ± 6.3. Overall, biatrial anastomosis was used in 62.2% (95% CI: 52.8-70.6) of the patients. The bicaval technique was performed in the remaining 37.8% (95% CI: 29.4-47.1). Sinus node dysfunction was the most frequent indication for PPM implantation (54.4%; 95% CI: 42.6-65.7) followed by AV block (45.6%; 95% CI: 34.3-57.3). The median time interval between OHT and PPM implantation ranged from 17 days to 12.5 years. All-cause mortality was 27.9% (95% CI: 18.6-39.6) during a median follow-up of 5 years. PPM implantation is rarely required after pediatric OHT. The most common indication for pacing is sinus node dysfunction, and patients undergoing biatrial anastomosis may be more likely to require PPM.
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 | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".