Effectiveness of Alcohol Septal Ablation Versus Transaortic Extended Myectomy in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with Midventricular Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Investigate the effectiveness of alcohol septal ablation (ASA) and transaortic extended myectomy (TEM) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) with midventricular obstruction (MVO). BACKGROUND: MVO is less common than subaortic obstruction. Data on the effectiveness of ASA and TEM in MVO are lacking. METHODS: The clinical profiles of 22 patients undergoing ASA and 37 patients undergoing TEM were compared. No patient had apical aneurysm, abnormal chordae, mitral valve replacement or repair. RESULTS: Baseline midventricular pressure gradient and symptoms were comparable between the ASA and TEM groups. During follow-up, both groups demonstrated substantial reduction in pressure gradient (the ASA group: 79.7 ± 21.2 mm Hg to 43.7 ± 28.9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; the TEM group: 69.0 ± 23.9 mm Hg to 15.0 ± 16.9 mm Hg, P < 0.001). The reduction in pressure gradient was greater (78.9 ± 18.6% vs. 46.4 ± 33.4%, P < 0.001) and the residual pressure gradient was lower after TEM versus ASA (P < 0.001). Patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV dyspnea decreased from 59.1 to 18.2% (P = 0.022) in the ASA group and from 56.8 to 5.6% (P < 0.001) in the TEM group. Patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III/IV angina decreased from 40.9 to 9.1% (P = 0.016) in the ASA group and from 32.4 to 0% (P < 0.001) in the TEM group. CONCLUSIONS: While ASA and TEM both improve gradients and symptoms, TEM may provide a more reliable reduction in gradients compared to ASA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".