A novel repair for patients with atrioventricular septal defect requiring reoperation for left atrioventricular valve regurgitation✩
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Left atrioventricular valve regurgitation (LAVVR) is the most frequent indication for reoperation following atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) repair. We estimate from our experience that within 10 years of initial repair, 14% of patients undergoing repair of atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) require reoperation for this complication. We have developed a novel leaflet augmentation technique for LAVVR which may avoid failure of conventional repair and/or the need for valve replacement. METHOD: The novel technique consists of insertion of a glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardial patch to augment the bridging leaflets of the atrioventricular valve. We describe the outcome of eight patients in whom this technique was used and compared them to 68 other patients with AVSD undergoing reoperation for LAVVR by either conventional repair (n=54) or valve replacement (n=14). RESULTS: There were no early deaths or major complications following patch repair. The mean follow-up is 2.3 years (range 1-8.5 years) during which there were no late deaths. Two patients underwent reintervention at 3.5 and 5 years after patch repair for LAVVR and were successfully rerepaired. Mild residual LAVVR was seen at last echocardiography in six patients and mild to moderate in two. These results compare favorably with the 68 patients who underwent conventional surgery. The 3-year freedom from reoperation was 86% for both repair groups. Dysplastic valve tissue appears to be a major risk factor for failure of conventional repair or for valve replacement. Failure of conventional valve repair led to valve replacement in six of seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with late LAVVR after AVSD repair, pericardial leaflet augmentation is durable and may avoid failure of conventional repair or valve replacement in patients with dysplastic valves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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".