Bridge to heart transplantation in patients with cardiogenic shock: a 20-year experience with two different surgical strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We aimed to describe how treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock bridged to heart transplantation with mechanical circulatory support, using either biventricular assist devices (BVADs) or extracorporeal life support (ECLS), has evolved in the last 20 years in our centre. METHODS: Since 1998, 72 patients with refractory heart failure and indication for heart transplantation have received mechanical circulatory support: 40 had an ECLS system and 32 a BVAD. RESULTS: Early mortality was similar (17.5 vs. 9.4%, P = 0.25) regardless of the type of support. After a median support time of 8 (1-27) vs. 34 (0-385) days (P < 0.01), 70 vs. 65.6% (P = 0.69) of patients underwent transplantation in the two groups. Prior to transplantation, BVAD patients were more stable with lower need for mechanical ventilation (9 vs. 57%, P < 0.01) and dialysis (0 vs. 38%, P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality after transplantation was similar (18 vs. 14%, P = 0.53). Patients with extracorporeal support had higher rates of renal (P = 0.02) and respiratory failure (P = 0.03), infections (P = 0.02), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.03) and longer ICU stay (P = 0.01). Late survival was similar, while 5-year freedom from coronary vasculopathy was higher in those with BVAD (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Although ECLS provides faster and simpler assistance compared with BVADs, no differences in early and medium-term outcomes in the last 20 years were observed in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, BVADs provided longer duration of support, better multiorgan recovery allowing more adequate graft selection, resulting in a lower rate of posttransplant complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".