MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292379374 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2022.08.008

Vascular Complications With Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP): Experience From a Large Canadian Metropolitan Centre

2022· article· en· W4292379374 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shaidah Deghan Manshadi, Naomi Eisenberg, Janice Montbriand, Adriana Luk, Graham Roche‐Nagle

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockRetrospective cohort studySurgeryMyocardial infarctionFasciotomyAortic dissectionAmputationIntra-aortic balloon pumpIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingCardiologyInternal medicineAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion in critically ill patients has been associated with both vascular and nonvascular complications, which have restricted its use. The primary objective for this study was to determine the frequency and predictors of vascular complication in our centre. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients treated with an IABP between January 2014 and June 2018. Baseline clinical characteristics, cannulation details, duration of treatment and management, overall mortality, and complications were extracted from electronic and paper medical records. Results: . A majority of the patients had an IABP inserted in either the cardiac catheterization laboratory (54.5%) or an outside hospital (26.7%). The main indications for insertion were acute decompensated heart failure-cardiogenic shock (58.3%), followed by acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (26.2%). From the documented cannulation site, the right femoral artery was cannulated in 61.6% of patients, with a median size of 7.5 Fr (range: 5 -12 Fr). Mortality for in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality was calculated at 37.4%, 40.6%, and 41.7%, respectively. Limb ischemia (3.2%), bleeding (1.6%), mesenteric ischemia (0.5%), compartment syndrome (0.5%), and fasciotomy (0.5%), were rare occurrences. No records indicated amputation, aortoiliac dissection, thrombectomy, or infection at the site of insertion. Conclusions: This single-centre retrospective study demonstrated that more than one third of this patient population died secondary to their primary diagnosis. The incidence of vascular complications secondary to IABP insertion remained low, with less than 3% developing an ischemic limb.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207