Tackling the Issue of High Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation Rates in Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Should Balloon Inflation be Removed from the Implantation Method of the Perceval Prosthesis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging alternative to standard AVR in elderly and high-risk patients. This procedure is associated with a high rate of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The study aim was to assess the impact on the rate of PPI of implanting the Perceval prosthesis without using balloon inflation. METHODS: A total of 159 patients who underwent sutureless AVR using the Perceval prosthesis was included. Balloon inflation was used in 132 patients (Balloon group) and not used in the remaining 27 (No-Balloon group). Clinical, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in PPI rate between the two groups (26% for Balloon group versus 22% in No-Balloon group; p = 0.700). Balloon inflation had no significant impact on the incidence of paravalvular leaks (p = 0.839), or on the need to return to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) intraoperatively due to paravalvular leak or unsatisfactory deployment (p >0.999). Mean and peak transaortic pressure gradients were similar between the two groups (p = 0.417 and p = 0.522, respectively). Cross-clamp and CPB times were shorter in the No-Balloon group (49.6 ± 15.9 min versus 61.1 ± 25.6 min and 64.1 ± 26.3 min versus 79.6 ± 35.4 min, respectively; p = 0.027 and p = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The two groups had similar postoperative PPI rates. Implanting the Perceval prosthesis without balloon inflation is safe and had no impact on paravalvular leaks, intraoperative complications or hemodynamic results. Reductions in aortic cross-clamp time and CPB time were observed when the balloon was not used.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".