Outcomes of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene pericardial membrane implantation in left ventricular assist device explantation and heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Redo sternotomy and explantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) for heart transplantation (HT) involve prolonged dissection, potential injury to mediastinal structures and/or bleeding. Our study compared a complete expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) wrap versus minimal or no ePTFE during LVAD implantation, on outcomes of subsequent HT. Methods Between July 2005 and July 2018, 84 patients underwent a LVAD implant and later underwent HT. Thirty patients received a complete ePTFE wrap during LVAD implantation (Group 1), and 54 patients received either a sheet of ePTFE placed in the anterior mediastinum or no ePTFE (Group 2). Results Baseline characteristics were similar between Groups 1 and 2. Surgeons reported subjective improvements in speed, predictability and safety of dissection with complete ePTFE compared with minimal or no ePTFE. Time from incision to initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were similar between groups (97±38 min vs 89±29 min, p=0.3). Injury to mediastinal structures during the dissection was similar between groups (10% vs 11%, p>0.9). While surgeons reported less intraoperative bleeding in Group 1 (43% vs 61%), this trend did not reach significance (p=0.1). In-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay were similar between both groups. Conclusions In patients undergoing LVAD explant-HT, there was a trend towards reduced surgeon reported intraoperative bleeding with ePTFE placement. Despite qualitatively reported greater ease and speed of mediastinal dissection with ePTFE membrane placement, time to initiation of CPB did not differ, likely because surgeons remained cautious, allowing extra time for unanticipated difficulties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".