Survival After Heart Transplant Listing for Infants on Mechanical Circulatory Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Infants with heart failure remain at significant risk for wait list mortality, despite mechanical circulatory support (MCS). It is unclear if the outcomes are influenced by modality of support or underlying diagnosis. We sought to compare the outcomes of infants <10 kg, focusing on modality of support and underlying diagnosis. Methods and Results Using the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society database, we evaluated survival following first MCS device in children <10 kg who were listed for heart transplant between 2010 and 2018. There were 2049 children <10 kg, with the predominant diagnosis being congenital heart disease (CHD) (59.8% [n=1226]) and 28.1% (n=577) requiring MCS. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was the most common form of MCS at listing, with ventricular assist device (VAD) more common after listing. There was no difference in the use of ECMO at or after listing for cardiomyopathy versus CHD (8.9% versus 7.2%; P =0.2; 5.4% versus 6.4%; P =0.4). However, there was a significant difference in the use of VAD both at listing (8% versus 2.4%; P <0.001) and after (22.8% versus 5.1%; P <0.001) between the 2 groups. When comparing these groups, patients with CHD were smaller and younger and had a higher proportion with previous cardiac surgery. Survival at 3 months demonstrated better survival for VAD therapy compared with ECMO (74.3% versus 48.6%; P <0.001). In patients <5 kg, survival did not differ between ECMO and VAD ( P =0.01) for the CHD or the cardiomyopathy group ( P =0.38), but patients with cardiomyopathy demonstrated better survival on both forms of support. Conclusions Survival for patients <10 kg on ECMO is inferior compared with VAD. Patients with cardiomyopathy <5 kg had better survival with both modes of MCS compared with those with CHD. These findings support the need for small, durable devices for neonates and infants, with particular focus in patients with CHD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".