Current Management of Anomalous Aortic Origin of a Coronary Artery: A Pan-Canadian Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery (AAOCA) is a significant cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children and adolescents. The natural history of AAOCA and the pathophysiology of AAOCA-related SCD are poorly understood. Therefore, the evaluation and management of AAOCA remain controversial. This survey-based study aims to report the current AAOCA management tendencies in Canada. METHODS: We built a 23-question survey on AAOCA. Questions pertained to patient presentation, investigations, morphology of the anomaly, management, and follow-up. We sent the survey to all the Canadian congenital cardiac surgeons, pediatric cardiologists, and adult congenital cardiologists. Data were anonymized and analysis was performed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: According to our survey participants (N = 47), patient age (94%) and amount of physical activity (60%) are the most influential factors when deciding whether to offer surgical correction. Aborted SCD, exercise-induced syncope, typical chest pain, and left jaw or arm pain are the most important clinical presentations indicating surgery. The most commonly used preoperative investigations are rest echocardiography (75%), electrocardiogram (68%), and exercise stress test (62%). Most respondents favor the unroofing procedure (78%) for surgical correction. For nonsurgical candidates, most physicians choose competitive exercise restriction (64%). CONCLUSION: We found a divergence between current practices and expert consensus guidelines regarding the treatment of asymptomatic left AAOCA with high-risk features. Our survey also revealed a lack of consensus among clinicians regarding the management of asymptomatic patients, very young patients, and those with right-sided AAOCA. Evidence-based criteria derived from sufficiently powered studies remain to be established to standardize AAOCA treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".