Jugular venous valved conduit (Contegra®) matches allograft performance in infant truncus arteriosus repair☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Limited availability and durability of allograft conduits require that alternatives be considered. We compared bovine jugular venous valved (JVV) and allograft conduit performance in 107 infants who survived truncus arteriosus repair. METHODS: Children were prospectively recruited between 2003 and 2007 from 17 institutions. The median z-score for JVV (n=27, all 12 mm) was +2.1 (range +1.2 to +3.2) and allograft (n=80, 9-15mm) was +1.7 (range -0.4 to +3.6). Propensity-adjusted comparison of conduit survival was undertaken using parametric risk-hazard analysis and competing risks techniques. All available echocardiograms (n=745) were used to model deterioration of conduit function in regression equations adjusted for repeated measures. RESULTS: Overall conduit survival was 64+/-9% at 3 years. Conduit replacement was for conduit stenosis (n=16) and/or pulmonary artery stenosis (n=18) or regurgitation (n=1). The propensity-adjusted 3-year freedom from replacement for in-conduit stenosis was 96+/-4% for JVV and 69+/-8% for allograft (p=0.05). The risk of intervention or replacement for branch pulmonary artery stenosis was similar for JVV and allograft. Smaller conduit z-score predicted poor conduit performance (p<0.01) with best outcome between +1 and +3. Although JVV conduits were a uniform diameter, their z-score more consistently matched this ideal. JVV exhibited a non-significant trend towards slower progression of conduit regurgitation and peak right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) gradient. In addition, catheter intervention was more successful at slowing subsequent gradient progression in children with JVV versus those with allograft (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: JVV does match allograft performance and may be advantageous. It is an appropriate first choice for repair of truncus arteriosus, and perhaps other small infants requiring RVOT reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".