Ventricular Assist Device Use in Pediatric Restrictive and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: An ACTION Registry Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) in children with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) remains rare. We describe the outcomes of patients with RCM and HCM supported by VAD in the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network (ACTION) registry from March 2012 to December 2024. Thirty-four patients were identified: 20 left-sided VAD (LVAD), 13 biventricular VAD (BiVAD), and 1 total artificial heart (TAH). Median age at implant was 2.5 years (0.3-17.5), weight was 11.8 kg (4.5-81.8), and body surface area (BSA) was 0.54 m 2 (0.26-2.01). Diagnoses included RCM in 25 (73.5%) patients and HCM in 9 (26.5%). Illness severity at implant was high with 38.2% Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1, 41.2% on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), 52.9% on ventilator support, 88.2% treated with greater than or equal to 1 inotrope, and 52.9% supported with TPN. Four patients (11.8%) died on device, 25 (73.5%) were transplanted, 4 (11.8%) were alive on device, and 1 (2.9%) was transferred to another center. Patients who died all had HCM diagnosis, required BiVAD support, and experienced adverse events. The cause of death was inadequate support (1), infection (2), and multi-organ failure (1). Ventricular assist device support is a reasonable strategy for select RCM and HCM patients, although outcomes in HCM are less favorable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".