Anatomo-pathological analysis after CoreValve Revalving system implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Significant technological improvements have made percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR) simpler and safer, but the behaviour of the implanted valve over time remains unknown. We report the anatomo-pathological analysis of patients who died at different time intervals post PAVR with the CoreValve Revalving System. METHODS AND RESULTS: In our early experience, 21 patients underwent CoreValve implantation between 12/2005 and 02/2007. Among the 11 deaths at one year follow-up, four patients had an autopsy with macro and microscopic analysis. The device was divided in three parts during pathological assessment: the lower portion (area 1), the leaflets (area 2) and the upper part (area 3). The CoreValves were implanted for 3, 13, 104 and 350 days. Gross examination showed neointimal tissue covering most of the frame struts in contact with the aortic wall, but areas of high velocity blood flow were bare. Histopathology examination demonstrated fibrin deposition and inflammatory response early after valve implantation, followed by neointimal coverage with progressive regression of the inflammatory response over time. CONCLUSIONS: While waiting for results of longer term PAVR echocardiographic follow-up, the anatomic assessment is encouraging with neointimal coverage of the native valve site and no excessive pannus formation occurring over the valve leaflets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".