Five year contemporary study of aortic valve replacement in octogenarians and septuagenarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The demand for symptomatic aortic disease intervention has increased significantly in recent years as the population ages. This, together with the recent introduction of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), motivates a review of the characteristics and outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly recipients. Methods: Consecutive patients over 70 years of age having isolated AVR during 2007-11 at the Hospital, Aukland City were retrospectively identified and divided into 70-79 years and ≥80 years age-groups for analyses Results: There were 62 octogenarians and 121 septuagenarians included. Octogenarians had significantly lower proportion with Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class 3-4 (3.2% vs 14.0%, p=0.022), diabetes (11.3% vs 24.8%, p=0.034) and mechanical valve used (1.6% vs 10.7%, p=0.037), but higher proportion with infective endocarditis (6.5% vs 0.0%, p=0.012) and higher EuroSCORE II (4.9% vs 3.7%, p<0.001). Despite this, operative mortality was significantly lower in octogenarians (0.0% vs 7.4%, p=0.029), although length of hospital stay post-operatively (11.7 vs 8.9 days, p=0.026) was significantly greater. One, three and five year survival rates were 95.2%, 90.1% and 75.3% for octogenarians and 89.2%, 81.7% and 70.2% for septuagenarians (p=0.398). Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class 3-4 and the presence of other valvular stenosis or regurgitation were independent predictors of both operative mortality and mortality during follow-up. Conclusion: Octogenarians had lower operative mortality despite higher predicted risk pre-operatively. Other factors beyond age and EuroSCOR, such as frailty, can be important in deciding whether elderly patients should undergo AVR, and when appropriately selected, AVR is a safe operation in octogenarians.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".