MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164877504 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu014

Twenty-year durability of the aortic Hancock II bioprosthesis in young patients: is it durable enough?†

2014· article· en· W2164877504 on OpenAlexaff
Dai Une, Marc Ruel, Tirone E. David

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic valve replacementAortic valveEndocarditisCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: There is a current trend towards the use of bioprosthetic aortic valves in the aortic position in young patients, but there is limited information on durability beyond the first decade. The Hancock II bioprosthesis has been reported to have excellent durability in patients ≥ 60 years of age. This study examines the long-term durability of the Hancock II bioprosthesis in the aortic position in patients <60 years of age. METHODS: From 1982 to 2008, 304 patients aged 59 years or less underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Hancock II bioprosthesis at two centres. The mean age was 49.2 ± 9.0 years, and 79% of the patients were male. Valve function was serially assessed by echocardiography. The median follow-up was 14.6 years (maximum 27.5 years). Survival and freedom from adverse events were calculated by using a Kaplan-Meier method. Independent predictors of those events were assessed by using Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: Survival and freedom from repeat AVR (re-AVR) at 20 years were 57.0 ± 6.1 and 25.4 ± 4.7%, respectively. During the follow-up, 100 patients (33%) underwent re-AVR: 78 for structural valve deterioration (SVD), 11 for endocarditis, 4 for non-structural valve dysfunction and 7 for other reasons. The overall 10-, 15- and 20-year freedom from re-AVR due to SVD were 91.4 ± 2.1, 64.7 ± 4.3 and 29.1 ± 5.3%, respectively. By age group, the 20-year freedom from re-AVR due to SVD amounted to 14.1 ± 8.7% in patients younger than 40 years of age, 21.5 ± 8.5% in patients aged 40-49 and 41.4 ± 8.2% in patients between 50 and 59 (P = 0.04). The independent predictors of re-AVR due to SVD were age [odds ratio (OR): 0.72 per 10 years; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58, 0.90; P < 0.01] and prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (effective orifice area index <0.80 cm(2)/m(2)) (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.01, 2.63; P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The Hancock II bioprosthesis for AVR in patients <60 years of age is associated with excellent durability during the first decade. However, SVD increases dramatically during the second decade and by 20 years, especially in patients aged <50 and/or with PPM. These findings may assist prosthesis selection for patients and their surgeons.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations80
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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