An alternative subcoronary implantation technique decreases the risk of complete heart block after stentless aortic valve replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Stentless aortic valve prostheses have excellent hemodynamic profiles, but may be associated with an increased postoperative heart block when compared to conventional prostheses. AIMS: To assess the effect of an alternative subcoronary implantation technique on postoperative complete heart block (CHB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following aortic valve replacement (AVR) with stentless tissue valves. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A total of 130 consecutive patients undergoing AVR with stentless tissue valves by a single surgeon were studied retrospectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A stentless tissue valve was implanted into 80 patients using the conventional modified subcoronary implantation technique, and 50 patients received a stentless tissue valve by an alternative subcoronary technique in which the inflow suture line is raised at the level of right-non coronary commissure. Data were collected at the time of hospital discharge and at 6-12 months postoperatively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Independent samples t-test was used to compare continuous variables, and categorical variables were compared with the chi-square test. RESULTS: Use of this new method reduced postoperative CHB (4.0% vs. 16.3%, P = 0.033), with fewer patients requiring PPI in the early postoperative period (6.0% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.041). Echocardiographic examination showed no differences in the effective orifice area, peak and mean aortic valve gradients, or left ventricular mass index between groups. Trivial or mild aortic regurgitation was found in 3.9% of patients with the conventional modified technique and 4.0% of patients undergoing the alternative technique, during follow-up (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional subcoronary implantation technique, the alternative subcoronary implantation technique reduces the incidence of new CHB and the requirement of PPI following AVR with stentless tissue valves while preserving mid-term hemodynamic function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".