MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393113174 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.14759

Echocardiographic Haemodynamic Monitoring in the Context of HeartMate 3™ Therapy: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4393113174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linus Ohlsson, Joanna‐Maria Papageorgiou, Tino Ebbers, Meriam Åström Aneq, Éva Tamás, Hans Granfeldt

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegion Östergötland
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHemodynamicsContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: While echocardiography remains essential within haemodynamic monitoring of durable mechanical circulatory support, previous echocardiographic guidelines are missing scientific evidence for the novel HeartMate 3™ (HM3) system. Accordingly, this review aims to summarize available echocardiographic evidence including HM3. METHODS AND RESULTS: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted during August 2023 across PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar using specific echocardiographic terms combined with system identifiers. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) for cross-sectional studies. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which eight cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. Aortic regurgitation (AR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited heterogenicity (33.5% (Δ 33%)) in a limited number of studies (n = 3). Several studies (n = 5) demonstrated an increasing prevalence and severity of AR during HM3 support, generating moderate to high level of evidence. One AR study showed a higher cumulative incidence of death and heart failure (HF) readmission compared with those without significant AR, hazard ratio 3.42 (95% CI 1.48-8.76). A second study showed that a worsening AR group had significantly lower survival-free from HF readmission (59% vs. 89%, P = 0.023) with a hazard ratio of 5.18 (95% CI 1.07-25.0), while a third study did not reveal any differences in cardiac-related hospitalizations in the 12 months follow-up or non-cardiac-related hospitalization. Mitral regurgitation (MR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited good consistency 15.0% (Δ 0.8%) in both included studies, which did not reveal any significant pattern of changing prevalence over time. Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited fair consistency 28.5% (Δ 8.3%) in a limited number of studies (n = 2); both studies showed a statistically un-confirmed trend of increased TR prevalence over time. The evidence of general prevalence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) was insufficient due to lack of studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are few methodologically consistent studies with focus on long-term haemodynamic effects. Aortic regurgitation still seems to be a prevalent and potentially significant finding. The available evidence concerning right heart function is limited despite clinical relevance and potential prognostic value. Potential interventricular and haemodynamic interplay are identified as a white field for future research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207