Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation within bioprosthetic valves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Replacement of bioprosthetic valves in the right ventricular (RV) outflow tract (RVOT) is inevitable due to acquired valvar dysfunction. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI) may result in acceptable clinical improvement avoiding surgical reintervention. To report outcomes of PPVI in dysfunctional surgically implanted bioprosthetic valves. METHODS AND RESULTS: All children undergoing PPVI into a bioprosthetic pulmonary valve between October 2005 and February 2008 were reviewed. Acute haemodynamic changes were compared and an analysis of variance applied to assess changes in ventricular geometry and pressure over time. Fourteen children (seven males), median weight 57.8 kg and 14.7 years of age were identified, with an echocardiographic RVOT gradient of 59.6 +/- 26.8 mmHg and a pulmonary regurgitation (PR) grade of 3.6 +/- 0.8 (out of 4). Implantation was successful in all. Twenty-four hours after implantation, there was a significant improvement in RV pressure (RVP) (from 82.2 +/- 15.6 to 59.4 +/- 9.9 mmHg, P < 0.001) and degree of PR to 0.6 +/- 0.9 (P < 0.001). Mean hospital stay was 2.0 +/- 0.4 days. Freedom from reintervention was 92 and 89% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography (mean 12.9 +/- 9.8 months) revealed a further reduction in RVP (P < 0.001) and RVOT gradients (P < 0.001) and an increase in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (P= 0.01) and aortic valve annulus diameters (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation for RVOT dysfunction in a previously implanted prosthetic valve is feasible and safe. Short-term follow-up data are encouraging, yet longer-term information is required to determine if this form of palliation has a significant impact on management strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".