MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123618132 · doi:10.1503/cjs.005719

Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3123618132 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher Wavell, Andrew Sokolowski, Michelle Klingel, Charles Yin, A. Dave Nagpal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineIschemic cardiomyopathyVentricular assist deviceCardiomyopathyMeta-analysisHeart failureEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinicians may be less inclined to consider long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) as a result of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) versus ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) owing to potentially greater right ventricular involvement in the former; however, it is unknown whether the cause of heart failure has a clinically meaningful effect on outcomes following LVAD implantation. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine whether ischemic versus nonischemic etiology has any impact on patient-relevant outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English between Jan. 1, 2000, and Nov. 22, 2018, that examined survival and transplantation rates following LVAD implantation in patients with NICM or ICM. Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series with a sample size of at least 8 patients were eligible for inclusion. To be included in the meta-analysis, outcomes had to include at least death reported at 30 days or 1 year after LVAD implantation. Quality of included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality-assessment tool was used to assess outcomes (30-d survival, 1-yr survival and cardiac transplantation following LVAD therapy) across studies. Results: From a total of 2843 citations identified, 7 studies met all inclusion criteria. Studies were generally of good quality, but reporting of patient demographic characteristics, outcomes and complications was heterogeneous. We found no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year survival or in cardiac transplantation rates after device implantation between the NICM and ICM groups. Patients in the 2 groups had similar outcomes up to 1 year with LVAD therapy. Conclusion: Early outcomes of LVAD therapy do not appear to be affected by heart failure etiology. Ongoing investigation is required to determine the long-term outcomes of LVAD therapy in ICM and NICM. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO register, record ID 76483.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.044
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207