Prognostic echocardiographic findings in patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Echocardiography is critical in the management of patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO). This study aimed to identify the incidence of critical echocardiographic findings and determine their prognostic significance. METHODS AND RESULTS: All available echocardiograms, hemodynamic variables and outcomes of patients with CS supported with V-A in the period of 2011-2018 at the Toronto General Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Critical echocardiographic findings were defined as minimal to no left ventricular (LV) ejection, the presence of intra-cardiac clot, significant pericardial effusion and malpositioning of ECMO cannulae. 130 patients were included in this study with in-hospital mortality of 58.5%. Critical findings were most often seen in the first echocardiogram (42/121; 35%). The incidence of critical findings in the first echocardiogram was minimal to no LV ejection in 28 patients (23%), intracardiac thromboses in 8 patients (6.6%), tamponade in 5 patients (4%) and malpositioned cannulae in 1 patient (0.8%). Presence of a critical finding in the first study was associated with an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality of 2.32 (95% CI 1.01-5.06, P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The initial echocardiogram was most likely to demonstrate a critical finding of which the most common was minimal to no LV ejection. Critical echocardiographic findings carried prognostic significance for in-hospital mortality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".