MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2414303880

Experience with stentless aortic xenografts.

2000· article· en· W2414303880 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giovanni Battista Luciani, Stefano Auriemma, Gianluca Casali, Luca Barozzi, Nicola Lamascese, Alessandro Mazzucco

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic valve replacementStenosisAortic valveSurgeryEndocarditisMitral valve replacementCardiologyCardiopulmonary bypassHeart failureInternal medicineValve replacementMitral valve
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aim was to define the long-term results after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with freehand stentless xenografts. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 376 consecutive patients (195 males, 181 females; mean age 70 +/- 7 years; range: 26-87 years) who underwent stentless AVR between October 1992 and April 2000. In total, 164 patients received Toronto SPV, 106 Biocor PSB, 101 Cryolife-O'Brien, and five other valves. Indication for surgery was valve stenosis (n = 246), regurgitation (n = 50), mixed lesion (n = 75) and prosthetic valve failure (n = 5). Mean preoperative NYHA functional class was 2.9 +/- 0.6 (range: 2-4). Associated procedures were required in 153 patients (41%), including coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 97), mitral operation (n = 26), ascending aortic replacement (n = 17) and 'other' (n = 13). Mean valve size was 25 +/- 3 mm (range: 21-29 mm), mean aortic cross-clamp time was 96 +/- 23 min (range: 42-186 min), and mean cardiopulmonary bypass time 128 +/- 34 min (range: 65-363 min). RESULTS: Ten patients (2.7%) died in hospital, due to cardiac causes (n = 6), cerebrovascular accident (n = 3) and multiorgan failure (n = 1). During a mean follow up of 40 +/- 20 months (range: 1-90 months) there were 33 late deaths. Survival was 96 +/- 1%, 83 +/- 3% and 80 +/- 4% and valve-related event-free survival 97 +/- 1%, 87 +/- 2% and 82 +/- 6% at one, five and seven years, respectively. Valve failure occurred in 21 (6%) patients (10 structural, nine non-structural, two endocarditis): freedom from structural valve deterioration was 99 +/- 1%, 95 +/- 2% and 92 +/- 4% at one, five and seven years. Reoperation on the xenograft was required in 17 (5%) patients, giving a freedom from reoperation of 99 +/- 1%, 94 +/- 2% and 90 +/- 4% at one, five and seven years. Freedom from valve failure and reoperation were significantly lower with Cryolife-O'Brien valves, but freedom from structural valve failure was similar. The average NYHA class was improved at follow up (1.4 +/- 0.7 versus 2.9 +/- 0.6 preoperatively, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Long-term survival and freedom from valve-related adverse events after stentless AVR in an elderly population were satisfactory. Freedom from structural deterioration was excellent and comparable for all xenograft models, while non-structural deterioration may have been more common with one valve model. Despite the advanced patient age, functional improvement late after operation may be expected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→