Management and Outcomes of Double Aortic Arch in 81 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Double aortic arch is a common form of complete vascular ring, encircling both the trachea and esophagus, resulting in noncardiac morbidity. We sought to describe management and outcomes in a large single institution clinical series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical charts of all of the patients diagnosed with double aortic arch at age <18 years. Data regarding clinical presentation, anatomy, management, and outcomes were abstracted. RESULTS: We identified 81 patients (67% males) born between 1964 and 2005 and presenting at a median age of 5 months (range: birth to 10.3 years). Respiratory symptoms were present in 91%, including stridor in 77%. Gastrointestinal symptoms were present in 40%, with choking with feeds being most common. The dominant branch of the double aortic arch was right in 72%. Associated cardiac anomalies were present in 18%, with noncardiac anomalies in 7%. Repair was performed in 79 patients at a median age of 6 months. There were 2 deaths after surgical repair with no late deaths, with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of 96% at 5 years. Postoperative complications included chylothorax in 9%. Only 1 patient required reoperation. The most common symptoms at most recent follow-up were respiratory (54%) followed by gastrointestinal symptoms (6%). Postoperative tracheal stenosis was documented in 14%, with tracheomalacia in 7%. There were no late reoperations and no evidence of aortic arch obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes are excellent after repair of double aortic arch, although persistent respiratory symptoms are frequent and probably associated with previous compression-related maldevelopment of the trachea and major airways.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".