Aortic root distensibility after subcoronary stentless valve implantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The preservation of aortic root dynamics is considered important for the durability of aortic valve bioprostheses. Stentless heart valves are believed to support physiologic biomechanics. To date, dynamic analysis has been limited to the full root prosthesis, and exclusively in the radial direction. The study aim was to investigate and compare the radial and longitudinal aortic root distensibilities of subcoronary stentless valves, and of stented and native pig valves. METHODS: Stented pericardial (Mitroflow) or stentless (Solo, Toronto SPV) valve prostheses, or native porcine valves, were investigated in 32 pigs. Postoperatively, 12 sonomicrometry crystals were placed on the aortic root in order to measure aortic root distensibility, in both radial and longitudinal directions. RESULTS: Sonomicrometry data were obtained from 23 pigs (72%). At the annular level, the native and Solo valves were significantly more distensible in a radial direction than the Mitroflow valve (p = 0.04). However, at the level of the sinotubular junction (STJ), commissures and aorta, the native valve was significantly more distensible than all of the artificial valves (p = 0.006, p = 0.006, and p = 0.02, respectively). The Solo valve exhibited less longitudinal distensibility than the Toronto SPV and Mitroflow valves. The Toronto SPV initiated a radial expansion at the STJ significantly later in the cardiac cycle than did both the Solo and native valves (p = 0.03), but showed no difference compared to the Mitroflow valve. Longitudinal expansion between the annulus and the STJ started significantly earlier for the Solo valve than for both the Toronto SPV (p = 0.03) and Mitroflow (p = 0.02) valves. CONCLUSION: The Solo valve proved to be superior in maintaining annular distensibility immediately following implantation when compared to the Mitroflow valve. The Solo valve did not, however, preserve longitudinal distensibility as well as the other investigated valves. Finally, the Solo valve appeared to provide a more physiologic aortic root expansion pattern than its prosthetic counterparts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".