Outcomes after Ross procedure in adult patients: A meta‐analysis and microsimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the risk of adverse events, life expectancy, and event-free life expectancy after the Ross procedure in adults. METHODS: We searched databases for reports evaluating the Ross procedure in patients aged more than or equal to 16 years of age. A microsimulation model was used to evaluate age- and gender-specific life expectancy for patients undergoing the Ross procedure. RESULTS: Data were pooled from 63 articles totaling 19 155 patients from 20 countries. Perioperative mortality was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-3.1; N = 9978). We found a mortality risk of 5.9% (95% CI: 4.8-7.2) at a mean follow-up of 7.2 years (N = 7573). The rate of perioperative clinically significant bleeding was 1.0% (95% CI: 0.1-3.0); re-exploration for bleeding 4.6% (95% CI: 3.1-6.3); postoperative clinically significant bleeding from 30 days until a mean of 7.1 years was 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-1.0). At a mean of 6.9 years of follow-up, reintervention rate of any operated valve was 7.9% (95% CI: 5.7-10.3). The risk of valve thrombosis was 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5) at 7.6 years; peripheral embolism 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.4) at 6.4 years; stroke 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7-1.2) at 6.5 years; and endocarditis 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6) at 8.0 years. Microsimulation reported a 40-year-old undergoing the Ross procedure to have a life expectancy of 35.4 years and event-free life expectancy of 26.6 years. CONCLUSIONS: Ross procedure in nonelderly adults is associated with low mortality and low risk of adverse events both at short- and long-term follow-up. The surgical community must prioritize a large, expertize-based randomized controlled trial to definitively address the risks and benefits of the Ross procedure compared to conventional aortic valve replacement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".