International practice heterogeneity in pre‐transplant management of pulmonary hypertension related to pediatric left heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) in the setting of left heart failure may contribute to poor outcomes after pediatric heart transplant (HTx), but peri‐transplant management is variable. Methods We sought to characterize international practice by surveying physicians at pediatric HTx centers. Results We received 49 complete responses from 39 centers in 16 countries. Most respondents are pediatric cardiologists (90%), practice at centers offering heart (86%) and lung (55%) transplant, and perform pre‐HTx acute vasoreactivity testing (AVT, 88%) in patients with elevated PVR. Half (51%) reported defining a PVR cutoff for HTx eligibility as ≤6 WU m2 (56%) post‐AVT (84%). The highest post‐AVT PVR ever accepted for HTx ranged from 3–14.4 (median 6) WU m2. To treat elevated pre‐transplant PVR, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are most common (65%) followed by oxygen (31%), nitric oxide (14%), endothelin receptor antagonists (11%), and prostacyclins (6%). Nearly a third (31%) do not routinely use pulmonary vasodilators without implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Case scenarios highlight treatment variability: in a restrictive cardiomyopathy scenario, HTx listing with post‐transplant vasodilator therapy was favored, whereas in a Shone's complex patient with fixed PVR, LVAD ± pulmonary vasodilators followed by repeat catheterization was most common. Management of dilated cardiomyopathy with reactive PVR was variable. Most continue vasodilator therapy until HTx (16%), PVR normalizes (16%) or ≤6 months. Conclusions Management of elevated PVR in children awaiting HTx is heterogenous. Evidence‐based guidelines are needed to allow for longitudinal determination of optimal outcomes and standardized care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".