Special Considerations in Critical Care of the Congenital Heart Disease Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcomes of congenital heart disease have improved markedly over the past 20 years, with survival to adulthood now close to 90%. The mean age of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) is 40 years. The incidence of hospital and critical care admissions have increased significantly as a consequence of this improved survival. Intensivists are now confronted with the management not only of complex adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) lesions from a cardiac perspective, but also of extracardiac organ consequences of years of abnormal circulation after surgical or palliative correction. Kidney and liver dysfunction and respiratory and hematologic abnormalities are very common in this population. ACHD patients can present to the ICU for a vast number of reasons, classified in this review as medical noncardiac, medical cardiac, and surgical. Community/hospital-acquired infections, cerebrovascular accidents, and respiratory failure, alongside arrhythmias and heart failure, are responsible for medical admissions. Surgical admissions include postoperative management after correction or palliation, but also medical optimisation and work-up for advanced therapies. ICU management of this large heterogeneous group requires a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology in order to apply conventional adult critical care modalities; left ventricular or right ventricular dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, intracardiac, extracardiac, and palliative surgical shunts can be present and require additional consideration. This review focuses on the pathophysiology, long-term sequelae, and different treatment modalities to supply a framework for the ICU physician caring for these patients. Successful outcome, especially in complex lesions, depends on early involvement of specialised ACHD centres.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".