MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157135298 · doi:10.1016/s1010-7940(02)00029-5

Aortic valve replacement with the Toronto SPV: long-term clinical and hemodynamic results

2002· article· en· W2157135298 on OpenAlexaffabout
Göran Dellgren, Christopher M. Feindel, Joanne Bos, Joan Ivanov, Tirone E. David

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
FundersKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsHemodynamicsTerm (time)Aortic valve replacementCardiologyMedicineInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Long-term durability and hemodynamics of stentless valves are unknown. Therefore, this study was undertaken to evaluate long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcome after aortic valve replacement with the Toronto stentless porcine valve (SPV) bioprosthesis at our institution. METHODS: Between 1991 and 1998, the Toronto SPV was implanted in 255 patients (mean age, 63+/-11 years, range 22-83 years, 181 males and 74 females). Preoperative diagnoses were aortic stenosis (76%), aortic insufficiency (12%) and mixed lesion (12%). New York Heart Association class III and IV were present in 49% (126/255) of the patients preoperatively. Mean valve size implanted was 26.5+/-2.1mm and in addition 34% (86/255) of the patients had coronary artery bypass surgery. RESULTS: Early mortality was 0.8% (2/255). Actuarial survival at 7 years was 90+/-3%. At 7 years, the freedom from cardiac death was 98+/-2%; from valve-related death, 99+/-1%; from valve reoperation, 97+/-2%; from structural valve degeneration, 97+/-2%; from thromboembolism, 95+/-2%; and from endocarditis, 99+/-1%. At 7 years of follow-up, the transvalvular peak and mean pressure differences across the aortic valve measured with Doppler echocardiography was 9.6+/-5.1 and 3.6+/-2.0 mmHg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Toronto SPV has provided excellent clinical and hemodynamic results up until 7 years of follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207