MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4369911: Prevalence and Risk Factors for Ventricular Assist Device-Associated Infection in Children: An Analysis of the ACTION Registry

2025· article· en· W4415793360 on OpenAlexaff
Madeleine Townsend, Neha Bansal, Shahnawaz Amdani, Ronal Naorem, Muhammad Shezad, Jennifer Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular assist deviceMultivariate analysisPercutaneousExtracorporealRetrospective cohort studyRisk factorHeart failureSurvival analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ventricular assist devices (VAD) are increasingly used to bridge children to heart transplant. Infection associated with extracorporeal VAD components remains a common source of morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine contemporary prevalence and risk factors for VAD-associated infection in children. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network (ACTION) registry evaluated patients implanted with left or single VAD from 01/04/18−04/30/25. Patients were classified based intracorporeal (IC) vs paracorporeal (PC) VAD, with further subdivision of the PC group by temporary vs durable (Berlin EXCOR®) cannulas at time of infection. Patients with and without VAD-associated infection (major infection – percutaneous site and/or pocket, internal pump component, inflow or outflow tract) were compared overall and by VAD type. Risk factors for VAD-associated infection were evaluated with multivariate analysis. One-year survival after infection was assessed using Kaplan Meier survival curve. Results: Of the 1527 patients included, 442 (28.9%) had IC VAD and 1085 (71.1%) PC VAD (964 durable, 121 temporary cannulas). There were 152 (10%) patients who developed VAD-associated infection, with no difference in one-year survival (Figure 1). While infection was more common for patients on PC VAD overall (PC n=94 vs IC n=58), patients on IC VAD had proportionately higher rate of infection (13.1% vs PC durable 9.3% vs PC temporary 3.3%) (p<0.05). Median time to infection was significantly later for IC vs PC VAD (143 vs 52.5 days, p<0.0001). Age, gender, diagnosis, INTERMACS profile, renal or liver dysfunction, past cardiac surgery and pre-VAD ECMO or ventilator use were not significantly different between patients with or without infection. While greater weight, device strategy and cannula cohort were significant in the univariate risk model, only cannula cohort approached significance in the multivariate model, with PC temporary protective (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.13-1.05, p=0.061) and IC increasing risk (OR 1.43, 95%CI 0.98-2.10, p=0.066) when compared to PC durable VAD. Conclusion: Nearly 1 in 10 children developed a VAD-associated infection. Fortunately, one-year survival was not worse for those with infection. Infection was proportionately higher for IC vs PC VAD, likely largely driven by longer time on device. Further studies on driveline management for IC VAD may help reduce morbidity for those on chronic VAD support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueCirculation→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→