MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585005081 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1598700

Coronary Artery Distortion and Revision in Children with Supravalvar Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Aortic Sinus Enlargement

2017· article· en· W2585005081 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Haller, Lynne E. Nield, Rachel Parker, A. Saedi, Devin Chetan, Barbara C.S. Hamilton, Luc Mertens, Glen Van Arsdell, Osami Honjo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyStenosisInternal medicineArteryAortic sinusSupravalvular aortic stenosisSinus (botany)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All articles of this category Objectives: Aortic sinus enlargement in patients with supravalvar aortic stenosis (SVAS) alters the geometry of the coronary sinuses, which may cause coronary artery kinking and stenosis. We sought to analyze the incidence of coronary artery distortion and its impacts on clinical outcomes. The effectiveness of surgical revision on the restoration of coronary artery flow was also analyzed. Methods: 47 patients with SVAS repaired between 2000 and 2014 were included. Median age at operation was 1.1years (IQR: 0.31–4.48), median body weight 9.4kg (IQR: 6.03–14.60) Repair was performed with one (12 [25.5%], G1), two (32 [68.1%], G2) or three (3 [6.4%], G3) sinus enlargement. Primary right coronary artery (RCA) reimplantation into the sinus patch was performed in 7 (14.9%) patients. Coronary artery flow patterns were assessed with transesophageal echocardiography intraoperatively and coronary artery stenosis was defined when there was a high peak velocity and/or systolic flow reversal. Median follow-up was 1.34 years (IQR: 0.1–6.55). Results: There were no differences in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp time between the three patching techniques ( p = 0.650/0.659). Revision for RCA distortion was performed intraoperatively in 14 (29.8%) patients, LCA revision in 2 (4.3%). Coronary revision techniques included patch plication (9 [64.3%]), division of adventitia (5 [35.7%]), re-patching (5 [35.7%]) or coronary reimplantation (3 [21.4%]). RCA revision led to a significant reduction of mean gradient by 2.5 ± 2.2 mm Hg ( p = 0.014) and peak gradients by 3.6 ± 4.5 mm Hg ( p = 0.041), and achieved comparable mean gradients compared with non-revised controls (revision group 1.4 ± 1.9 mm Hg versus non-revision group 1.6 ± 1.1 mm Hg, p = 0.811). There was no difference in 1-year survival between revision and non-revision groups (revision: 89.1% vs. no-revision: 91.7% p = 0.752). Coronary revision was necessary in patients with two sinus enlargement only. Coronary revision was not associated with postoperative cardiac arrest, ECMO, or reintervention. Conclusion: Coronary artery distortion with right coronary sinus patching is relatively common in two sinus enlargement but can be addressed intraoperatively without negative impact on subsequent coronary flow pattern and clinical outcomes. Thorough intraoperative assessment of coronary flow is mandatory to ensure optimal outcome.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeonSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207