Institutional Affiliations Chair Costanzo MR: Midwest Heart Foundation, Lombard Illinois, USA Task Force 1 Dipchand A: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto Ontario, Canada; Starling R: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Anderson A: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Chan M: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Desai S: Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia, USA; Fedson S: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Fisher P: Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; Gonzales-Stawinski G: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Martinelli L: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; McGiffin D: University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Parisi F: Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesu, Rome, Italy; Smith J: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Task Force 2 Taylor D: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Meiser B: University of Munich/Grosshaden, Munich, Germany; Baran D: Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, New Jersey, USA; Carboni M: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Dengler T: University of Hidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Frigerio M: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; Kfoury A: Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, USA; Kim D: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Kobashigawa J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Shullo M: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Stehlik J: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Teuteberg J: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Uber P: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Zuckermann A: University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Task Force 3 Hunt S: Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA; Burch M: Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK; Bhat G: Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, Illinois, USA; Canter C: St. Louis Children Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Chinnock R: Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, California, USA; Crespo-Leiro M: Hospital Universitario A Coruna, La Coruna, Spain; Delgado R: Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas, USA; Dobbels F: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Grady K: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illlinois, USA; Kao W: University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, USA; Lamour J: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Parry G: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Patel J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Pini D: Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy; Pinney S: Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Towbin J: Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Wolfel G: University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA Independent Reviewers Delgado D: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Eisen H: Drexler University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Goldberg L: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Hosenpud J: Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Johnson M: University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Keogh A: St Vincent Hospital, Sidney, New South Wales, Australia; Lewis C: Papworth Hospital Cambridge, UK; O'Connell J: St. Joseph Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Ross H: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Russell S: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Vanhaecke J: University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

http://www.jsht.jp/uploads/ISHLT_GL_TaskForce2_110810.pdf

The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients

4. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research

Thank you very much for downloading introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. As you may know, people have search numerous times for their favorite books like this introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing, but end up in harmful downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful bugs inside their laptop.

Introduction To Robust Estimation And Hypothesis Testing

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) was founded on November 22, 1992, and currently includes representatives from the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC), the Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation (ANZCOR), Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa (RCSA), the InterAmerican Heart Foundation (IAHF), and the Resuscitation Council of Asia (RCA). Its mission is to identify and review international science and knowledge relevant to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) and when there is consensus to offer treatment recommendations. Emergency cardiovascular care includes all responses necessary to treat sudden life-threatening events affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, with a particular focus on sudden cardiac arrest.

In 1999, the AHA hosted the first ILCOR conference to evaluate resuscitation science and develop common resuscitation guidelines. The conference recommendations were published in the International Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care .1 Since 2000, researchers from the ILCOR member councils have evaluated resuscitation science in 5-year cycles. The conclusions and recommendations of the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations were published at the end of 2005.2,3 The most recent International Consensus Conference was held in Dallas in February 2010, and this publication contains the consensus science statements and treatment recommendations developed with input from the invited participants.

The goal of every resuscitation organization and resuscitation expert is to prevent premature cardiovascular death. When cardiac arrest or life-threatening emergencies occur, prompt and skillful response can make the difference between life and death and between intact survival and debilitation. This document summarizes the 2010 evidence evaluation of published science about the recognition and response to sudden life-threatening events, particularly sudden cardiac arrest and periarrest events in …

/pdf/part-1-executive-summary-2010-international-consensus-on-xfjkhp0zxr.pdf

Part 1: Executive summary: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

Since publication of the last American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on this topic in 1998,1 device technology, advances in interventional techniques, and an innovative spirit have opened the field of congenital heart therapeutic catheterization. Unfortunately, studies testing the safety and efficacy of catheterization and transcatheter therapy are rare in the field because of the difficulty in identifying a control population, the relatively small number of pediatric patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), and the broad spectrum of clinical expression. This has resulted in the almost exclusive “off-label” use of transcatheter devices, initially developed for management of adult diseases, for the treatment of CHD.

The objective of the present writing group, which included representatives of the AHA and endorsements from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the American Academy of Pediatrics, was not only to provide the reader with an inventory of diagnostic catheterization and interventional treatment options but also to critically review the literature and formulate relative recommendations that are based on key opinion leader expertise and level of evidence. The writing group was charged with the task of performing an assessment of the evidence and giving a classification of recommendations and a level of evidence to each recommendation. The American College of Cardiology/AHA classification system was used, as follows:

### Classification of Recommendations

Indications for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention in Pediatric Cardiac Disease A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Objective: To determine types of complications and risks associated with pedatric cardiac catheterization in the current era. Background: Pedatric cardiac catheterization is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Although in the last decade, there have been significant improvements in technology and equipment, the risk for complications remains, adversely effecting outcomes. Design: The clinical records of 11,073 children undergoing cardiac catheterizations between January 1994 and March 2006 were reviewed to identify procedures associated with complications within the first 24 h after catheterization. All children's electronic and paper chart records were reviewed to obtain demographic, procedural, and treatment data. Results: A total of 858 (7.3%) complications (classified as major or minor) occurred in 816 studies (510 males, 63%), in children ranging in age from 8 h to 20 years (median 4.13 years). There were 195 major (22%) and 663 (78%) minor complications. Vascular complications represented the majority (n = 278; 32.4%) and were major in 53 instances (P < 0.0001). Twenty-five children died within 24 h (0.23% of total case numbers). Independent risk factors for a complication included young patient age (<6 months), male gender, inpatient status, and year of catheterization. Conclusions: Complications continue to be associated with pedatric cardiac catheterization, although overall incidence appears to be decreasing. Patient age, gender, and inpatient status continue to be risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Efforts at improving equipment for flexibility and size, and developing strategies for the use of alternative methods for catheter access should be encouraged. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Complications of pediatric cardiac catheterization: a review in the current era.

Complete heart block associated with device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects.

Outcome and growth potential of left heart structures after neonatal intervention for aortic valve stenosis.

Background—Tetralogy of Fallot with cyanosis requiring surgical repair in early infancy reflects poor anatomy and is associated with more clinical instability and longer hospitalization than those ...

Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Stenting in Tetralogy of Fallot Infants With Risk Factors for Early Primary Repair.

Aims Replacement of bioprosthetic valves in the right ventricular (RV) outflow tract (RVOT) is inevitable due to acquired valvar dysfunction. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI) may result in acceptable clinical improvement avoiding surgical reintervention. To report outcomes of PPVI in dysfunctional surgically implanted bioprosthetic valves.

Methods and results All children undergoing PPVI into a bioprosthetic pulmonary valve between October 2005 and February 2008 were reviewed. Acute haemodynamic changes were compared and an analysis of variance applied to assess changes in ventricular geometry and pressure over time. Fourteen children (seven males), median weight 57.8 kg and 14.7 years of age were identified, with an echocardiographic RVOT gradient of 59.6 ± 26.8 mmHg and a pulmonary regurgitation (PR) grade of 3.6 ± 0.8 (out of 4). Implantation was successful in all. Twenty-four hours after implantation, there was a significant improvement in RV pressure (RVP) (from 82.2 ± 15.6 to 59.4 ± 9.9 mmHg, P < 0.001) and degree of PR to 0.6 ± 0.9 ( P < 0.001). Mean hospital stay was 2.0 ± 0.4 days. Freedom from reintervention was 92 and 89% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography (mean 12.9 ± 9.8 months) revealed a further reduction in RVP ( P < 0.001) and RVOT gradients ( P < 0.001) and an increase in left ventricular end-diastolic volume ( P = 0.01) and aortic valve annulus diameters ( P < 0.001).

Conclusions Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation for RVOT dysfunction in a previously implanted prosthetic valve is feasible and safe. Short-term follow-up data are encouraging, yet longer-term information is required to determine if this form of palliation has a significant impact on management strategies.

/pdf/percutaneous-pulmonary-valve-implantation-within-23mr6wne8j.pdf

Kyong-Jin Lee

Papers

Complications of pediatric cardiac catheterization: a review in the current era.

Complete heart block associated with device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defects.

Outcome and growth potential of left heart structures after neonatal intervention for aortic valve stenosis.

Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Stenting in Tetralogy of Fallot Infants With Risk Factors for Early Primary Repair.

Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation within bioprosthetic valves