Contemporary Trends in Aortic Valve Surgery:. A Single Centre 10-Year Clinical Experience*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to present a comprehensive profile of the trends in aortic valve replacement at a single institution over the past decade. Prospectively collected data concerning 873 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), with and without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), were analysed. The patients were divided into three time periods: period I, (1990 to 1993); period II, (1994 to 1996); and period III, (1997 to 2000). Actuarial survival of AVR patients with and without CABG at 7 years was 82.9 +/- 2.4% and 79.1 +/- 3.3% (p = 0.17), respectively. Actuarial survival at 7 years for stentless, mechanical, and stented valve patients were 89.5 +/- 2.7%, 85.5 +/- 2.8%, and 76.0 +/- 3.2%, respectively. There was a significant difference in survival between the stentless and stented valve groups (p = 0.014). Age (63.8 +/- 12.9 yrs, 66.2 +/- 11.0 yrs, 67.9 +/- 10.3 yrs; p = 0.01), the incidence of peripheral vascular disease (5.1%, 10.8%, 16.6%; p = 0.001), and the extent of coronary artery disease necessitating CABG (34.0%, 38.8%, 41.0%; p = 0.05) have increased significantly in the later time period. However, operative mortality has remained constant (4.7%, 4.8%, 4.5%; p = 0.9). Moreover, perioperative complications have decreased significantly (27.4%, 18.0, 16.0%; p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified more recent time period as independent protective factor for early mortality and morbidity (period I, RR 1.00; period II, RR 0.47; period III, RR 0.40).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".