Reimplantation versus remodelling with ring annuloplasty: comparison of mid-term outcomes after valve-sparing aortic root replacement†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Remodelling with extra-aortic ring annuloplasty has emerged as an alternative approach to root reimplantation. However, no studies have yet compared outcomes between procedures. The aim of this study was to compare mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing reimplantation versus remodelling with extra-aortic annuloplasty. METHODS: From 2001 to 2017, 142 patients underwent root remodelling with extra-aortic annuloplasty (n = 83, 48 ± 13 years) or a reimplantation technique (n = 59, 48 ± 12 years) at the Montreal Heart Institute. No differences were observed in the incidence of connective tissue disease (24% vs 29%, P = 0.9) or preoperative aortic insufficiency ≥3 (37% vs 23%, P = 0.24). However, in the remodelling group, there were more bicuspid aortic valves (31% vs 9%; P < 0.01), and the mean preoperative aortic annulus diameter was larger (27.2 ± 3.6 mm vs 25.6 ± 2.4 mm; P = 0.01). The mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years (100% complete). RESULTS: There were no hospital deaths and 5 late deaths. At 5 years, overall survival was similar in both groups (100%, P = 0.98). Similarly, 5-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation was equivalent (97 ± 2% in both groups, P = 0.95). Furthermore, 5-year survival free from aortic insufficiency ≥2 or reoperation was 84 ± 5% in the remodelling with annuloplasty group vs 83 ± 6% in the reimplantation group (P = 0.62). The mean annular diameter was 24.3 ± 0.5 mm at 5 years vs 23.6 ± 0.3 mm at discharge in the remodelling group (P = 0.28) and 24.4 ± 0.6 mm vs 23.2 ± 0.3 mm, respectively, in the reimplantation group (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher prevalence of bicuspid aortic valves and larger aortic annular diameters, mid-term outcomes after remodelling with extra-aortic annuloplasty and reimplantation are comparable. Extra-aortic ring annuloplasty is effective at stabilizing annular dimensions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".