Incidence of tamponade following temporary epicardial pacing wire removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY: Placement of temporary epicardial pacing wires (TEPW) is common practice in cardiac surgery. Removal of TEPW in the postoperative period can lead to serious bleeding necessitating surgical intervention and conferring high morbidity. The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of TEPW removal complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of all major cardiac operations at our institution from 2005 to 2016 was conducted. Patients were identified using the Maritime Heart Center Database. We reviewed preoperative, intra-operative, and postoperative characteristics of patients who returned to the operating room more than or equal to 3 days after their index operation to identify those who had bleeding and/or tamponade as a consequence of TEPW removal and any subsequent morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 11 754 patients underwent cardiac surgery at our institution between 2005 and 2016. Of these patients, 88 (0.75%) went back to the operating theater for bleeding and/or tamponade more than or equal to 3 days from their initial index operation. Of these, 11 (0.09%) were secondary to TEPW removal where two (0.017%) suffered irreversible anoxic brain injury. All 11 patients were on antiplatelet therapy with the addition of either deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation, which is the standard of care at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding complications following TEPW removal are rare but have significant consequences including increased hospital length of stay, resource utilization, and morbidity. Standardized practice to address antiplatelet, DVT prophylaxis, and anticoagulation before removal may help further reduce the incidence of serious bleeding events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".