Long Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes in Middle Aged Patients Undergoing the Ross Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical options for aortic valve replacement in middle aged adults are limited and suboptimal. The Ross (pulmonary autograft) procedure is potentially a good alternative in this patient population. We aimed to describe the long term clinical and echocardiographic outcome in middle aged adults who underwent the Ross procedure. An international multicenter study was conducted including consecutive patients of 18 to 65 years who underwent the Ross procedure between 1990 and 2016. Serial echocardiographic measurements of valve function were analyzed using non-linear mixed effects modeling. During the study period, 1431 patients (74.3% males) were operated at a median age of 48.5 years (inter quartile range 42.7-54.0), of which 1048 (73.2%) had a bicuspid aortic valve. Congenital heart disease was present in 1103 (77.1%) patients. Implantation techniques were root inclusion in 355 (24.9%), root replacement in 485 (34.0%) and subcoronary implantation in 587 (41.1%). Right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction was performed with homografts in 98.8% and bioprostheses in 1.2%. In hospital mortality was 10 (0.7%). Median follow up was 9.2 years (13015 total patient-years). Survival after 10 and 15 years was 89% and 79%, respectively. Freedom from allograft and autograft reintervention after 15 years were 91% and 86%, respectively. Late events were autograft endocarditis in 14 patients (0.11%/patient-year), homograft endocarditis in 11 patients (0.08%/patient-year) and stroke in 37 patients (0.3%/patient-year). Longitudinal peak gradient and regurgitation grades for both the pulmonary and aortic valve are shown in Figure 1.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".