Aortic balloon valvuloplasty and aortic valve replacement: A comparative follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term benefits and complications of patients subjected to aortic balloon valvuloplasty with those of a similar group of patients subjected to aortic valve replacement. Both groups were matched for age and sex and followed up to December 1991. The study period for the valvuloplasty group was from 1986 to 1991. The surgical group was studied from 1979 to 1991. Clinical and hemodynamic data were collected prospectively. Short- and long-term follow-ups were collected retrospectively from chart reviews, telephone inquiries with patients, immediate relatives, and family physicians. A total of 66 patients were studied; 33 had balloon valvuloplasty. A similar number of surgical patients were randomly selected from a group of 60 who had aortic valve replacement, to match the age and sex of the valvuloplasty group. Baseline, clinical, and hemodynamic characteristics were similar in both groups. All patients had right, retrograde, and transseptal left heart catheterization. Gradient across aortic valve was measured by simultaneous recording of pressures in left ventricle and aorta. Indicator dilution curves were used to calculate cardiac index and assess severity of aortic regurgitation. Patients with regurgitant fraction >25% were excluded from aortic valvuloplasty. Although inhospital mortality was higher in surgically treated patients (12% vs 9%) the 5-year survival of valve replacement was much better than those treated with balloon valvuloplasty (71% vs 7%). Our selection of patients and immediate results of valvuloplasty are comparable to seven published series. Aortic balloon valvuloplasty should not be used as a routine or elective procedure for treatment of adult patients with aortic stenosis. It could, however, be considered as a “bridge” procedure to stabilize high-risk patients before surgical replacement of the valve.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".