Outcome and right ventricle remodelling after valve replacement for pulmonic stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Complications and need for reinterventions are frequent in patients with pulmonary valve stenosis (PVS). Pulmonary regurgitation is common, but no data are available on outcome after pulmonary valve replacement (PVR). Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 215 patients with PVS who underwent surgical valvotomy or balloon valvuloplasty. Incidence and predictors of reinterventions and complications were identified. Right ventricle (RV) remodelling after PVR was also assessed. Results After a median follow-up of 38.6 (30.9–49.4) years, 93% of the patients were asymptomatic. Thirty-nine patients (18%) had at least one PVR. Associated right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) intervention and the presence of an associated defect were independent predictors of reintervention (OR: 4.1 (95% CI 1.5 to 10.8) and OR: 3.6 (95% CI 1.9 to 6.9), respectively). Cardiovascular death occurred in 2 patients, and 29 patients (14%) had supraventricular arrhythmia. Older age at the time of first intervention and the presence of an associated defect were independent predictors of complications (OR: 1.0 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.1) and OR: 2.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.2), respectively). In 16 patients, cardiac magnetic resonance before and after PVR was available. The optimal cut-off values for RV volume normalisation were 193 mL/m 2 for RV end-diastolic volume indexed(sensitivity 80%, specificity 64%) and 100 mL/m 2 for RV end-systolic volume indexed(sensitivity 80%, specificity 56%). Conclusions Previous RVOT intervention, presence of an associated defect and older age at the time of first repair were predictors of outcome. More data are needed to guide timing of PVR, and extrapolation of tetralogy of Fallot guidelines to this population is unlikely to be appropriate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".