MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223629985 · doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.02.043

Reply: Reimplantation should be the gold standard to treat the regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve

2022· article· en· W4223629985 on OpenAlexaff
Tirone E. David

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Techniques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicuspid aortic valveMedicineConflict of interestGold standard (test)Aortic rootAortic valveCardiologySurgeryInternal medicineLawAortaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. The author reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. In 1992, Dr John Kirklin asked me if I believed reimplantation of the aortic valve was a reproducible operation and I said yes, but it required a sound knowledge of functional anatomy of the aortic valve and better than average technical skills. Three decades later, I still feel the same. Reimplantation of the aortic valve is an extensive and complex operative procedure, and it may never be part of the surgical armamentarium of all cardiac surgeons. Jahanyar and colleagues1Jahanyar J. El Khoury G. de Kerchove L. Reimplantation should be the gold standard to treat the regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Tech. 2022; 13: 42-43Scopus (1) Google Scholar from Brussels probably disagree with my views and believe that reimplantation of the aortic valve is the “gold standard” treatment for incompetent aortic valve regardless of the presence or absence of associated aortic root aneurysm. Their contention is based on an experience with 189 patients with incompetent bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) followed for 5.7 years (interquartile range, 2.7-8.7), with 13 patients lost to follow-up.2de Meester C. Vanovershelde J.L. Jahanyar J. Tamer S. Mastrobuoni S. Van Dyck M. et al.Long-term durability of bicuspid aortic valve repair: a comparison of 2 annuloplasty techniques.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021; 60: 286-294Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar Freedom from reoperation at 12 years was 91 ± 5%, and most reoperations (5 of 8) were due to mixed lesions (stenosis and insufficiency), but no information regarding late valve function is given. Gebrine El Khoury and Hans-Joachim Schäfers are probably the 2 most experienced surgeons in the world in BAV repair. Their results are exceptionally good, and more importantly they use different techniques to repair the incompetent BAV. Are their results reproducible? My personal results with reimplantation of the aortic valve in patients with Marfan syndrome have been excellent.3David T.E. David C.M. Manlhiot C. Colman J. Crean A.M. Bradley T. Outcomes of aortic valve-sparing operations in Marfan syndrome.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66: 1445-1453Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar The cumulative incidence of reoperation in the aortic valve was only 5%, and the cumulative incidence of moderate or severe aortic insufficiency 8% at 15 years.3David T.E. David C.M. Manlhiot C. Colman J. Crean A.M. Bradley T. Outcomes of aortic valve-sparing operations in Marfan syndrome.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66: 1445-1453Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar I continue to follow these patients, and the rates of reoperation or significant aortic insufficiency remain as low as reported. Coselli and colleagues4Coselli J.S. Volguina I.V. LeMaire S.A. Connolly H.M. Sundt T.M. Milewicz D.M. et al.Midterm outcomes of aortic root surgery in patients with Marfan syndrome: a prospective, multicenter, comparative study.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. September 4, 2021; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar recently reported on the outcomes of 319 patients with Marfan syndrome operated on by 49 surgeons as part of a prospective, multicenter, comparative study. Aortic valve-sparing (AVS) was performed in 239 and the Bentall procedure in 77. The authors stated that “propensity score–adjusted competing risk modeling showed associations between AVS and higher cumulative incidences of major adverse valve-related events, valve-related morbidity, combined structural valve deterioration and nonstructural valve dysfunction, and aortic regurgitation.” Based on this study, AVS is a bad operation to treat patients with aortic root aneurysm associated with Marfan syndrome. In other words, my results may not be reproducible, and as the late John Kirklin told me, good operations must be reproducible operations. I don't agree with Jahanyar and colleagues1Jahanyar J. El Khoury G. de Kerchove L. Reimplantation should be the gold standard to treat the regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Tech. 2022; 13: 42-43Scopus (1) Google Scholar that reimplantation of the aortic valve is the “gold standard” treatment for all incompetent BAV. It may be in their hands, but the rest of us should use it only in patients with well-formed cusps without fibrosis or calcification and with main commissures aligned close to 180°. Reimplantation should be the gold standard to treat the regurgitant bicuspid aortic valveJTCVS TechniquesVol. 13PreviewMokashi and associates1 have recently shared the Cleveland Clinic's intermediate-term experience with reimplantation of tricuspid aortic valves (TAV) and bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). In a propensity score–matched analysis, the authors demonstrated excellent 5-year outcomes with 100% survival in the BAV and 98% survival in the TAV group. Freedom from reoperation in the BAV and TAV cohort was 94% and 98%, respectively. Although both procedures were done with equal safety and short-term outcomes, the authors were concerned due to greater transvalvular gradients and less ventricular reverse remodeling in the BAV cohort, as well as less freedom from reoperations in the BAV cohort at 8 years (77%). Full-Text PDF Open Access

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS TechniquesSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207