Is routine use of stentless aortic prostheses justified in an elderly (aged > or =75 years) population?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Stentless prostheses in the aortic position produce a superior hemodynamic profile in comparison to that with stented valves. To determine whether routine use of stentless valves in an elderly population is justified, a 10-year retrospective review was performed of a consecutive series of patients aged > or =75 years undergoing stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: Demographic, operative and mortality data were obtained retrospectively. Survivors were interviewed by telephone according to a defined protocol. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of 30-day and overall medium-term mortality. Definitions and analyses were in accordance with joint STS/AATS guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (57 males, 46 females; mean age 79.8 years; range: 75-91 years) underwent AVR with a either a Toronto stentless porcine valve (size range: 21-29 mm; n = 74) or an aortic homograft (n = 29). Twenty-eight patients (27%) had either urgent/emergency surgery, 12 (11%) underwent redo surgery, and in 54 cases (52%), the preoperative left ventricular function was significantly impaired (ejection fraction <50%). Forty patients (39%) also underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 105+/-22 min and 144+/-47 min, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 11.6% (n = 12). The 30-day mortality for all elective cases was 5.3%, but for isolated elective AVR was only 2.5%. Using a multivariate model, the only independent predictor of 30-day mortality and medium-term overall mortality was increasing age. The mean follow up period was 3.6 years (range: 0.1-9.3 years), and the Kaplan-Meier actuarial five-year survival was 52%. At follow up, 92% of patients were in NYHA functional classes I and II. CONCLUSION: Stentless AVR in elderly patients is associated with excellent functional and survival outcome in the medium term. Furthermore, in elective cases, age alone should not be a deterrent to the routine use of stentless aortic valves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".