Are Outcomes of Surgical Versus Transcatheter Balloon Valvotomy Equivalent in Neonatal Critical Aortic Stenosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For neonates with critical aortic valve stenosis who are selected for biventricular repair, valvotomy can be achieved surgically (SAV) or by transcatheter balloon dilation (BAV). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data regarding 110 neonates with critical aortic valve stenosis were evaluated in a study by the Congenital Heart Surgeons Society from 1994 to 1999. Reduced left ventricular function was present in 46% of neonates. The initial procedure was SAV in 28 patients and BAV in 82 patients. Mean percent reduction in systolic gradient was significantly greater with BAV (65+/-17%) than SAV (41+/-32%; P<0.001). Higher residual median gradients were present in the SAV versus BAV group (36 mm Hg [range, 10 to 85 mm Hg] versus 20 mm Hg [0 to 85 mm Hg], P<0.001). Important aortic regurgitation was more often present after BAV (18%) than SAV (3%; P=0.07). Time-related survival after valvotomy was 82% at 1 month and 72% at 5 years, with no significant difference for SAV versus BAV, even after adjustment for differences in patient and disease characteristics. Independent risk factors for mortality were mechanical ventilation before valvotomy, smaller aortic valve annulus (z score), smaller aortic diameter at the sinotubular junction (z score), and a smaller subaortic region. A second procedure was performed in 46 survivors. Estimates for freedom from reintervention were 91% at 1 month and 48% at 5 years after the initial valvotomy and did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SAV and BAV for neonatal critical aortic stenosis have similar outcomes. There is a greater likelihood of important aortic regurgitation with BAV and of residual stenosis with SAV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".