Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and pre-superior cavopulmonary connection haemodynamics in infants with single-ventricle physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preliminary animal and human data suggest that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition has a role in pulmonary vascular remodelling. We sought to assess the effect of ACEi versus placebo on pulmonary artery pressure and transpulmonary gradient amongst infants undergoing single-ventricle palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the publicly available Pediatric Heart Network Infant Single-Ventricle trial dataset, we compared mean PA pressure at pre-superior cavopulmonary connection catheterisation (primary outcome), transpulmonary gradient, pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratio, and post-SCPC oxygen saturation (secondary outcomes) in infants receiving enalapril versus placebo. RESULTS: A total of 179 infants underwent pre-SCPC catheterisation, of which 85 (47%) received enalapril. There was no difference between the enalapril and placebo group in the primary and the secondary outcomes. Mean PA pressure in the enalapril group was 13.1 ± 2.9 compared to 13.7 ± 3.4 mmHg in the placebo group. The transpulmonary gradient was 6.7 ± 2.5 versus 6.9 ± 3.2 mmHg in the enalapril and placebo groups, respectively. The pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratio was 1.1 ± 0.5 in the enalapril group versus 1.0 ± 0.5 in the placebo group and the post-SCPC saturation was 83.1 ± 5.0% in the enalapril group versus 82.2 ± 5.3% in the placebo group. In the pre-specified subgroup analyses comparing enalapril and placebo according to ventricular morphology and shunt type, there was no difference in the primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: ACEi did not impact mean pulmonary artery pressure or transpulmonary gradient amongst infants with single-ventricle physiology prior to SCPC palliation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".