The Contegra conduit: Late outcomes in right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical outcomes (early death, late death, and rate of reintervention) and performance of the Contegra conduit as a right ventricle outflow tract implant and to determine the risk factors for early reintervention. METHODS: Forty-nine Contegra conduits were implanted between January 2002 and June 2009. Data collection was retrospective. The mean age and follow-up duration of Contegra recipients was 3.5 ± 4.6 years and 4.2 ± 2.0 years, respectively. RESULTS: There were three deaths (two early, one late), giving a survival rate of 93.9%. The rate of conduit-related reintervention was 19.6% and was most often due to distal conduit stenosis. Age at implantation of <3 months, receipt of a conduit of 12-16 mm diameter, and a diagnosis of truncus arteriosus were each significant contributors to the rate of reintervention. CONCLUSION: The Contegra is a cost-effective and readily available solution. However, there is a limited range of larger calibers, which means that the homograft conduit (>22 mm) remains the first choice of implant in older children. The rates of reintervention are significantly higher with a diagnosis of truncus arteriosus, age at implantation of <3 months, and implantation of conduits sized 12-16 mm.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".