Results of surgery for aortic root aneurysm in patients with the Marfan syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of two operations, aortic valve-sparing and aortic root replacement, in patients with aortic root aneurysm and the Marfan syndrome. METHODS: A retrospective review of 78 consecutive patients with aortic root aneurysm and the Marfan syndrome according to the Gent criteria indicated that 42 patients with normal aortic cusps had an aortic valve-sparing operation, and 36 patients had aortic root replacement (mechanical valve in 25 patients and biological valve in 11). The mean age was similar in both groups, but patients who had aortic root replacement had larger aneurysms, higher grade aortic insufficiency, worse left ventricular function and more cardiac co-morbidity than patients who had aortic valve-sparing operations. The mean follow-up was 41+/-35 months for patients who had aortic valve-sparing, and 65+/-50 months for those who had aortic root replacement. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meyer estimates of survival at 5 years was 100% for patients who had aortic valve-sparing, and 88+/-6% for those who had aortic root replacement (P=0.04). Five patients who had aortic root replacement required seven aortic root re-replacements: three for endocarditis and four for valve failure (biological valves). There have been no reoperations in patients who had aortic valve-sparing operations and annual Doppler echocardiography revealed mild or no aortic insufficiency in 39 patients and moderate aortic insufficiency in three. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that aortic valve-sparing operations are safe in patients with the Marfan syndrome and may provide better clinical outcomes than aortic root replacement. Since the size of the aneurysm often determines the feasibility of a valve-sparing procedure, we now recommend surgery when the diameter of the aortic root reaches 50 mm in patients with the Marfan syndrome who have echocardiographically normal aortic valve cusps.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".