Comparison between Del Nido and conventional blood cardioplegia in pediatric open-heart surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Del Nido cardioplegia (DNc) was designed for superior myocardial protection during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We conducted a retrospective review to explore if DNc was associated with increase in systemic ventricle dysfunction (sVD) following pediatric CPB. Methods and Results This single-center, retrospective study included 1534 patients undergoing CPB between 2013 and 2016, 997 prior to center-wide conversion to DNc and 537 following. The primary outcome was new postoperative ≥moderate sVD by echocardiogram. Secondary outcomes included sVD of any severity and right ventricular dysfunction. Data was evaluated by interrupted time-series analysis. Groups had similar cardiac diagnoses and surgical complexity. Del Nido cardioplegia was associated with longer median (IQR) CPB [117 (84–158) vs 108 (81–154), p = 0.04], and aortic cross-clamp [83 (55–119) vs 76 (53–106), p = 0.03], and fewer cardioplegia doses [2 (1–2) vs 3 (2–4), p < 0.0001]. Mortality was similar in both groups. Frequency of sVD was unchanged following DNc, including predetermine subgroups (neonates, infants, and prolonged cross-clamp). Logistic regression showed a significant rise in right ventricular dysfunction (OR 5.886 [95% CI: 0.588, 11.185], p = 0.03) but similar slope. Conclusions Use of DNc was not associated with increased in reported sVD, and provided similar myocardical protection to the systemic ventricle compared to conventional cardioplegia but may possibly impact right ventricular function. Studies evaluating quantitative systolic and diastolic function are needed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".