Clinical Presentation and Value of Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Freestyle Aortic Bioprosthesis Leaflet Tears: A Retrospective Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The unique design of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis has led to different mechanisms of failure, particularly leaflet tearing. The aim of this retrospective study was to review the clinical presentation and echocardiographic data of symptomatic patients with leaflet tears and significant aortic regurgitation (AR) following implantation of the Freestyle bioprosthesis. METHODS: Between January 1993 and May 2011, a total of 430 consecutive patients was identified at the authors' institution who had undergone primary aortic valve replacement with a Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected prospectively for all patients. Structural valve deterioration was the major cause of bioprosthetic valve failure. RESULTS: Twenty symptomatic patients presented with significant AR due to leaflet tears in the absence of more than mild valvular calcification. At presentation, all patients complained of dyspnea. Some 50% of patients (n = 10) presented with acute pulmonary edema, and 10% (n = 2) with cardiogenic shock. A leaflet tear was initially diagnosed using transthoracic echocardiography in five cases (25%), using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in eight cases (40%), or at surgery in seven cases (35%). An appropriate diagnosis of leaflet tearing was recognized at surgery in more than one-third of patients. Consequently, clinicians must be aware of the variety of clinical presentations and should have a high degree of suspicion regarding leaflet tears in patients who have received a Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis and present with moderate to severe AR. CONCLUSIONS: For the optimal management of patients with Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis and new moderate to severe AR, TEE should be considered in all patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".