Comparison of outcomes of root replacement procedures and supracoronary techniques for surgical repair of acute aortic dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgical approach to type A acute aortic dissection (AADA) is usually dictated by the presenting anatomy. We compared long-term outcomes of AADA repaired with a root replacement versus a supracoronary tube graft, regardless of the proximal extent of the intimal tear. Methods: A single-centre, retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing repair of AADA between December 1999 and March 2012 were stratified based on the proximal surgical procedure performed: supracoronary tube graft or root replacement. Imaging, chart reviews and clinical follow-ups were analyzed to identify the presenting anatomy and clinical outcomes. Results: We included the cases of 75 patients in our analysis: 54 received a supracoronary tube graft and 21 received a root replacement. The proximal tear was identified below the sinotubular junction in all patients in the root group and in 61% of patients in the supracoronary group. We detected no differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or complications. However, the root group had significantly increased renal failure (0% v. 9.5%, p = 0.018), cardiopulmonary bypass time (198.4 ± 80.0 min v. 316.5 ± 102.5 min, p < 0.001), cross-clamp time (91.6 ± 34.9 min v. 191.3 ± 52.8 min, p < 0.001), duration of surgery (457.5 ± 129.9 min v. 611.6 ± 197.8 min, p < 0.001), and platelet transfusions (8.1 ± 7.6 v. 12.8 ± 8.7 units, p = 0.021) than the supracoronary group. Long-term follow-up demonstrated a greater incidence of 2+ aortic regurgitation among patients in the supracoronary group than the root group (29.7% v. 0.0%, p = 0.006); however, there was no difference between the groups in symptoms or reoperation. Conclusion: In AADA, aortic root replacement involves a longer procedure with increased risk of early renal impairment. Long-term follow-up identified significantly more aortic regurgitation and root dilation in the supracoronary group than the root group, with a trend toward worse long-term survival. However, we found no difference between the groups in mortality, reoperation or New York Heart Association class.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".