MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013959999 · doi:10.21037/acs.2020.03.07

Comparison of SynCardia total artificial heart and HeartWare HVAD biventricular support for management of biventricular heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3013959999 on OpenAlex
Elizabeth J. Maynes, Thomas J. O’Malley, Jessica G.Y. Luc, Matthew P. Weber, Dylan P. Horan, Jae Hwan Choi, Sinal Patel, Syed-Saif Abbas Rizvi, Rohinton J. Morris, John W. Entwistle, H. Todd Massey, Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureVentricular assist deviceArtificial heartInternal medicineHeart transplantationStroke (engine)Incidence (geometry)CardiologyCardiac resynchronization therapySurgeryEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing SynCardia total artificial heart (TAH) and biventricular HeartWare ventricular assist device (Bi-HVAD) support for biventricular heart failure (HF). Methods: Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies detailing patients who underwent biventricular assist device implantation using Bi-HVAD devices and those who underwent TAH placement for biventricular HF. Twelve studies including 512 patients in the TAH group versus 38 patients in the Bi-HVAD group were pooled for meta-analysis. Results: Ischemic cardiac etiology was present in 32% (95% CI, 24–47) of TAH vs. 15% (95% CI, 4–44) of Bi-HVAD patients (P=0.21). There was a comparable incidence of stroke [TAH 11% (95% CI, 7–16) vs. Bi-HVAD 13% (95% CI, 2–51), P=0.86] and acute kidney injury [TAH 28% (95% CI, 2–89) vs. Bi-HVAD 27% (95% CI, 9–59), P=0.98]. Overall infection rate was 67% (95% CI, 47–82) in TAH and 36% (95% CI, 10–74) in Bi-HVAD (P=0.16). Driveline infections were comparable between the two groups [TAH 11% (95% CI, 6–19) vs. Bi-HVAD 8% (95% CI, 1–39), P=0.73] and although a higher incidence of mediastinitis was found in the Bi-HVAD group [TAH 4% (95% CI, 2–7) vs. Bi-HVAD 15% (95% CI, 4–45), P=0.07] there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Postoperative bleeding was present in 42% (95% CI, 28–58) of TAH vs. 23% (95% CI, 8–52) of Bi-HVAD (P=0.22). Patients in the TAH group had shorter duration of support [TAH 71 days (95% CI, 15–127) vs. Bi-HVAD 167 days (95% CI, 116–217), P=0.01]. At the mean follow-up time of 120 days, (95% CI, 83–157) patients in both groups had similar overall mortality [TAH 36% (95% CI, 22–49) vs. Bi-HVAD 26% (95% CI, 6–46), P=0.44] including mortality on device support [TAH 26% (95% CI, 17–36) vs. Bi-HVAD 21% (95% CI, 4–37), P=0.55]. Discharge home on support was achieved in 6% (95% CI, 4–17%) of TAH patients vs. 73% (95% CI, 48–89%) of Bi-HVAD (P<0.01), and 68% (95% CI, 52–84) of TAH patients were transplanted vs. 61% (95% CI, 47–75) in the Bi-HVAD group (P=0.14). Conclusions: Patients on Bi-HVAD support were more likely to be able to be discharged home on support and had similar overall mortality to TAH, albeit with much longer duration of support.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.230 · 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