Does the Use of Stentless Aortic Valves in a Subcoronary Position Prevent Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch for Small Aortic Annulus?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Freestyle stentless bioprostheses have shown excellent hemodynamic performance. However, small size subcoronary implants have yet to prove their clinical usefulness. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch [PPM = Indexed Effective Orifice Area (iEOA) < or = 0.85 cm2/m2] after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with 19-mm and 21-mm stentless bioprostheses and to evaluate clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. METHODS: From January 1993 to December 2000, 419 patients who had undergone Freestyle bioprostheses implantation were prospectively followed. Sixty-eight patients (16%) received a 19-21-mm prosthesis. The EOA was calculated and indexed to the patient's body surface area to obtain the iEOA. Clinical as well as echographic measures were recorded at discharge and at one and five years. RESULTS: PPM was present in 91% and 80% of patients with 19-mm and 21-mm prostheses, respectively. Severe mismatch (iEOA < or = 0.65 cm2/m2) was present in 58% and 17%. Mean gradients at discharge were 22 +/- 11 mmHg for the 19-mm prostheses and 14 +/- 7 mmHg for the 21-mm prostheses. Perioperative mortality was 33% (4/12 pts) for 19-mm prosthesis and 7% (4/56 pts) for 21-mm prostheses. Five-year actuarial survival was 58% for patients with 19-mm prosthesis and 82% for patients with 21-mm prosthesis (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: AVR with small size Freestyle subcoronary implants is associated with a high incidence of PPM and high mortality.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".