MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409112624 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.103389

Percutaneous Closure of Postinfarct Left Ventricular Pseudoaneurysm After Surgical Patch Dehiscence

2025· article· en· W4409112624 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Traynor, Syed M. Ali Hassan, Thomas Attumalil, Amr Gamal, Yazeed Almalki, Bradley Sarak, Géraldine Ong, Sami Alnasser, Subodh Verma, Neil Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneousDehiscenceClosure (psychology)MedicinePseudoaneurysmCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular free wall rupture is a life-threatening mechanical complication of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In patients with a timely diagnosis, emergent surgical patch repair is the cornerstone of management; re-rupture, surgical patch dehiscence, and left ventricular pseudoaneurysm (LVPA) are potential late complications after surgery. CASE SUMMARY: A 72-year-old man presented with NYHA functional class III dyspnea 4 months after surgical patch repair. We report, to our knowledge, the first case of successful percutaneous closure of LVPA resulting from surgical patch dehiscence. DISCUSSION: LVPA after surgical repair is a serious late complication. Multimodality imaging and careful case planning allowed for successful device closure with excellent clinical outcome. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: Multimodality cardiac imaging is essential for accurate diagnosis and management of acute left ventricular free wall rupture and LVPA resulting from surgical patch dehiscence. Percutaneous closure of LVPA after surgical patch dehiscence is an effective and safe alternative to redo surgery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207