MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172249478 · doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.07.017

Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcome

2006· article· en· W2172249478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thierry Bové, Yves Vanbelleghem, Karrie E. Francois, Frank Caes, Hans Vanoverbeke, G VANNOOTEN

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAortic valve replacementProsthesisUnivariate analysisLeft ventricular hypertrophyAortic valveBody surface areaSurgeryMultivariate analysisBlood pressureStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report on the midterm results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with stented and stentless bioprosthesis in an elderly population by analyzing the factors affecting survival and hemodynamical performance. METHODS: In a retrospective study, 145 patients with a Toronto stentless prosthesis are compared with 110 patients with a stented Carpentier-Edwards valve. The 5- to 10-year clinical outcome, transprosthetic gradients, and early and late left ventricular mass (LVM) regression are analyzed in view of specific prosthesis- and patient-related factors. RESULTS: Actuarial survival at 5 years is 82% after stentless AVR versus 68% after stented AVR (p < 0.001) in elderly patients. However, there was no difference in survival at 8 years, being 55.9% and 59.5%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that advanced age at the time of operation, NYHA class IV, use of a stented xenograft, presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (IEOA < or = 0.85 cm2/m2), and severe preoperative left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVMI > 180 g/m2) affected survival adversely. But multivariate analysis determined only age, NYHA class IV and excessive LV hypertrophy as independent predictors of late mortality. Stented and stentless xenografts were equally effective in terms of transprosthetic gradients and LVMI regression. The use of a stentless valve significantly reduced the occurrence of PPM (18% vs 41%, p < 0.01). Early LVMI regression at 1 year was optimized by the avoidance of PPM, indicated by a higher absolute (43.7+/-28.3 g/m2 vs 58.6+/-33.8 g/m2, p = 0.003) and relative (25.0+/-12.7% vs 31.4+/-14.9%, p=0.004) mass regression. However, late LV remodeling was predominantly affected by systemic hypertension and severe preoperative LV hypertrophy, resulting in the incomplete LVMI resolution in 61.3% and 66.7% of these patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients, aortic valve replacement appears to be equally effective with a stentless or stented bioprosthesis. Midterm clinical outcome is mainly determined by patient-related factors such as age, advanced NYHA class, and severity of preoperative LV hypertrophy. Regarding post-AVR left ventricular remodeling, patient-prosthesis mismatch influences the early phase, whereas arterial hypertension affects the late regression more. However, the left ventricular remodeling is continuously compromised by the preoperative presence of excessive hypertrophy, despite the efficacy of the aortic valve replacement.

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)0.003
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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