Outcomes in Patients with Anthracycline-Induced Cardiomyopathy Undergoing Left Ventricular Assist Devices Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Improved cancer survivorship has led to a higher number of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy patients with end-stage heart failure. We hypothesize that outcomes following continuous-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) implantation in those with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy are comparable with other aetiologies of cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) from 2008 to 2017, we identified patients with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy who received a CF-LVAD and compared them with those with idiopathic dilated (IDM) and ischaemic cardiomyopathies (ICM). Mortality was studied using the Cox proportional hazards model. Other adverse events were evaluated using competing risk models. Overall, 248 anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy patients underwent CF-LVAD implantation, with a median survival of 48 months, an improvement compared with those before 2012 [adjusted hazards ratio (aHR): 0.53; confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86]. At 12 months, 85.1% of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy, 86.0% of IDM, and 80.2% of ICM patients were alive (anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy vs. IDM: aHR: 1.12; CI: 0.88-1.43 and anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy vs. ICM: aHR: 0.98; CI: 0.76-1.28). Anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy patients had a higher major bleeding risk compared with IDM patients (aHR: 1.23; CI: 1.01-1.50), and a lower risk of stroke and prolonged respiratory support compared to ICM patients (aHR: 0.31 and 0.67 respectively; both P < 0.05). There was no difference in the risk of major infection, acute kidney injury, and venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: After receiving a CF-LVAD, survival in patients with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy is similar to those with ICM or IDM. Further research into differential secondary endpoints-related disparities is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".