Two-Year Follow Up of the LATERAL Clinical Trial: A Focus on Adverse Events.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe LATERAL trial validated the safety and efficacy of the thoracotomy approach for implantation of the HeartWare HVAD System, leading to Food and Drug Administration approval. We sought to analyze 24-month adverse event (AE) rates, including a temporal analysis of the risk profile, associated with the thoracotomy approach for the HVAD system.MethodsAEs from the LATERAL trial were evaluated over 2 years postimplant. Data was obtained from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support database for 144 enrolled United States and Canadian patients. Temporal AE profiles were expressed as events per patient year.ResultsDuring 162.5 patient years of support, there were 25 driveline infections (0.15 events per patient year), 50 gastrointestinal bleeds (0.31 events per patient year), and 21 strokes (0.13 events per patient year). Longitudinal AE analysis at follow-up intervals of <30 and 30 to 180 days, and 6 to 12 and 12 to 24 months revealed the highest AE rate at <30 days, with a decrease in total AEs within the first 6 months. After 6 months, most AE rates either stabilized or decreased through 2 years, including a 95% overall freedom from disabling stroke.ConclusionsTwo-year follow-up of the LATERAL trial revealed a favorable morbidity profile in patients supported with the HVAD system, as AE rates were more likely to occur in the first 30 days postimplant, and overall AE rates were significantly reduced after 6 months. Importantly, 2-year freedom from disabling stroke was 95%. These data further support the improving AE profile of patients on long-term HVAD support. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02268942.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".