Late Outcomes of Reintervention on the Descending Aorta After Repair of Aortic Coarctation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After repair of aortic coarctation, patients may develop restenosis, aneurysms, and pseudoaneurysms at the site of prior repair. We assessed the outcomes of late reintervention on the descending aorta after aortic coarctation repair. METHODS AND RESULTS: From March 1954 to July 2008, 130 patients had operations or endovascular procedures on the descending aorta after previous coarctation repair. We excluded patients who had complex left-sided cardiac lesions or interrupted aortic arch. Mean age at reintervention was 32±24 years and 28% were female. The interval between coarctation repair and reintervention was 17±13 years. Seventy-four percent of patients had hypertension. Reasons for reintervention were restenosis (n=122 [94%]), aneurysm (n=4 [3%]), and pseudoaneurysm (n=4 [3%]). Ninety-five patients (73%) underwent operative procedures including an extra-anatomic conduit (n=41), patch repair (n=32), interposition graft (n=14), end-end anastomosis (n=6), and subclavian flap (n=2). Thirty-five patients underwent endovascular treatment (balloon dilatation, n=22 or stenting, n=13). There was no early mortality. In the surgical group, 5 patients required early reoperation for bleeding and 5 patients had early vocal cord paralysis. One patient in the endovascular group had aortic rupture at the time of intervention requiring urgent operation. Survival was 97% at 10 years. At 5 years, freedom from a second repeat procedure on the descending aorta was 96% in the surgical group and 72% in the endovascular group (P<0.001). Five years after reintervention, fewer patients required treatment for hypertension (57% versus 74%, P<0.001) and a median of 1 antihypertensive medication was prescribed compared with a median of 2 medications preintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Operative and endovascular management of recoarctation can be performed safely with good late outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".