Perioperative Stroke Following Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Stroke is common following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, although comprehensive data on perioperative strokes in this uncommon population is lacking. The current study aim was to characterize the presentation, features, and outcomes of perioperative cerebrovascular ischemia post-LVAD implantation at the authors' institution. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort. SETTING: St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients who received an LVAD between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2021, were included, and those who died intraoperatively or underwent a concurrent cardiac surgical procedure were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Data on demographics, comorbidities, stroke risk factors and characteristics, management, and outcomes (transplant, explant, death with LVAD in situ) were extracted. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After exclusions, 172 adult patients who underwent LVAD implantation during the study period were included and analyzed. The rate of perioperative stroke was 12.8% (22/172). Of these, 72.7% (16/22) had a stroke occur within 7 days of surgery, and 86.4% (19/22) had a primarily ischemic (v hemorrhagic) event. A total of 68.2% (15/22) were intubated, sedated, or recently extubated at symptom onset, complicating diagnosis. All were managed supportively or palliated without specific stroke intervention. Patients who experienced a perioperative stroke had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of survival to cardiac transplantation and a significantly higher cumulative incidence of dying with their device in situ. CONCLUSIONS: LVAD patients carry a high risk of perioperative stroke. They experience delayed recognition and diagnosis, limited intervention, and poor outcomes. Frequent neurological assessment and a low threshold for neuroimaging are prudent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".