Apico-Aortic Conduit for severe aortic stenosis: Technique, applications, and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients referred for aortic valve replacement are often elderly and may have increased surgical risk associated with ascending aortic calcification, left ventricular dysfunction, presence of coronary artery disease, previous surgery, and/or presence of several co-morbidities. Some of these patients may not be considered candidates for conventional surgery because of their high risk profile. While transcatheter aortic valve replacement constitutes a widely accepted alternative, some patients may not be eligible for this modality due to anatomic factors. Apico-Aortic Conduit (AAC) insertion (aortic valve bypass surgery) constitutes a possible option in those patients. Apico-Aortic Conduit is not a new technique, as it has been used for decades in both pediatric and adult populations. However, there is a resurging interest in this technique due to the expanding scope of elderly patients being considered for the treatment of aortic stenosis. Herein, we describe our surgical technique and provide a systematic review of recent publications on AAC insertion, reporting that there is continued use and several modifications of this technique, such as performing it through a small thoracotomy without the use of the cardiopulmonary bypass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".