MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 17048: Fifteen Year Follow-Up After Aortic Root Replacement with Stentless Biological Valve Conduits: Homograft versus Freestyle

2011· article· en· W144719847 on OpenAlexaff
Sandro Sponga, François Dagenais, Jean Perron, Pierre Voisine, Vincent Tchana‐Sato, Daniel Doyle, Siamak Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic rootAortic valve replacementAortic valveElectrical conduitCardiologyValve replacementSurgeryInternal medicineAortaStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The choice of biologic aortic valve substitute for aortic root replacement is multifaceted. Herein, we report the compared long-term outcome of two type of stentless biologic valve conduits namely homograft and Fresstyle bioprosthesis used to replace the aortic root and followed prospectively up to 15 years. Methods: Between 1993 and 2011, 188 patients underwent elective primary aortic root replacement with a stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve with (n=38) or without (n=150) CABG. Among these patients, 98 Freestyle and 90 homografts were implanted. All clinical and echocardioraphic data were collected prospectively. Mean overall follow-up was 8.5±3.9 years (range: 0.1-15). It was 8.4±3.8 years for Freestyle, and 8.5±4.0 years for homografts, and complete in all patients. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable between groups except for age and number of pre-operative diagnosis of endocarditis ( p <0.0001) and moderate/severe aortic insufficiency ( p <0.008). The mean age was significantly higher in the Freesstyle (65.4±8.5years) compared to homograft (48.1±13.0 years) group ( p < 0.0001). Hospital mortality was comparable between the Freestyle and the homograft group (5.1% versus 7.8%, p =0.6). Ten and 15-years survival was 66.7% and 53.0% in the Freestyle versus 89.9% and 69.1% in the homograft group, respectively ( p <0.001). Freedom from reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 10 and 15 years was 98.8% and.92.7% for the Freestyle compared to 87.4% and 68.6% in the homografts group, respectively ( p =0.009). Independent risk factors for reoperation for SVD were age (OR:1.1, CI: 1.02-1.1, p =0.002), and use of homograft (OR:7.7, CI: 1.7-35.5, p =0.008). Independent risk factors for poorer long-term survival were age (OR 1.2, CI: 1.1-1.3, p =0.001), and lenght of hospital stay (OR 2.9, CI: 1.5-3.8, p =0.0003). Mean pressure gradient at the end of follow-up was 8.5±6.2 mm Hg for the Freestyle and 9.9±9.1 mm Hg for the homograft patients. Conclusion: The choice of stentless biologic valve for aortic root reconstruction have no influence on early and long-term survival. The use of biologic root reconstruction with Freestyle bioprostheses provides a better freedom from reoperation due to SVD compared to homografts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→