Implantation of endovascular stents for the obstructive right ventricular outflow tract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and long term outcomes of catheter intervention for obstructive conduits between the right ventricle and pulmonary arteries. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary care paediatric cardiology unit. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: 70 procedures in 68 children (median age at intervention 6 years, median interval after conduit insertion 3.4 years) were analysed. All children had haemodynamic indications for conduit replacement. Twenty four children underwent a second intervention (stent dilatation in 17, second stent implantation in seven). RESULTS: Mean (SD) conduit pressure gradient decreased from 44 (18) mm Hg to 18 (12) mm Hg at the initial intervention (n = 62, p < 0.001) and from 39 (15) mm Hg to 23 (10) mm Hg at the second intervention (n = 16, p < 0.001). The percentage of the predicted right ventricular outflow area increased from 17 (9)% to 44 (22)% at the initial intervention (n = 62, p < 0.001) and from 24 (8)% to 29 (11)% at the second intervention (n = 21, p < 0.001). The conduit was subsequently replaced in 33 children. Freedom from conduit replacement from the time of stent implantation was 83%, 75%, and 47% at one, two, and five years, respectively, and from the time of the initial conduit surgery it was 87%, 64%, and 42% at five, eight, and 10 years, respectively. Body growth was maintained, no deaths were reported during follow up, and pulmonary insufficiency was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: A catheter treatment strategy for obstructive conduits is safe and effective in prolonging conduit 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".