Surgery for Cardiac Valves and Aortic Root Without Cardioplegic Arrest ("Beating Heart"): Experience with a New Method of Myocardial Perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous antegrade/retrograde warm blood perfusion with a beating heart has not been previously reported as a mean of protecting hypertrophied hearts in cardiac valve and aortic root surgeries. Similarly, beating heart mitral valve surgery via the trans-septal approach with the aorta unclamped, is a novel technique. We, herein, report a series of 346 patients with a variety of cardiac pathologies who were operated upon utilizing a new modality of myocardial perfusion. Among this group of patients, there were 55 patients who were diagnosed with endocarditis of one or more valves. These patients were excluded from this series of patients. Mean age was 59 +/- 12, and there were 196 (67.3%) males and 95 (32.7%) females. There were six aortic root procedures, 90 mitral valve replacements (MVR), 46 mitral valve repairs, 20 MVR+ coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 28 tricuspid valve repairs, 106 aortic valve replacements (AVR), 17 AVR+CABG, and 8 AVR/MVR. Crude mortality for the group was 20 of 291 (6.8%). Intra-aortic balloon pump utilization at time of weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass was 6/291 (2.06%), and re-operation for bleeding was needed in 12 of 291 (4.1%) patients. Postoperative stroke occurred in 4 of 291 (1.3%) patients. In these patients, the clinical diagnosis of stroke was made prior to surgery. This initial experience with this new method of myocardial perfusion indicates that results are at least comparable, if not superior, to conventional techniques utilizing intermittent cold blood cardioplegia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".