Aortic Valve Repair for Adult Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background —Aortic valve–preserving procedures have resulted in excellent outcomes in selected patients, particularly those with normal aortic valve leaflets and dilated aortic roots. However, several congenital heart lesions are associated with abnormal aortic valve leaflets. The long-term results of aortic valve repair for these lesions are not well defined. Methods and Results —We reviewed the clinical records of 54 adult (age >18 years) patients who underwent repair of congenital abnormalities of the aortic valve between 1976 and September 1999. Follow-up data were available on 52 (96%) patients (mean 50±67 months, range 1 to 266). Patients underwent repair at a mean age of 34±14 years with associated diagnoses of subaortic stenosis (n=10), ventricular septal defect with prolapsing aortic valve (n=17), bicuspid aortic valve (n=23), sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (n=10), and bacterial endocarditis (n=2). There was 1 operative death (1.9%) and 3 late deaths. Survival at 5 and 10 years was 98±2% and 74±12%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation was 74±9% and 51±15% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The presence of a ventricular septal defect predicted failure of valve repair (59% versus 22%, P =0.01). A bicuspid aortic valve, subaortic stenosis, or the requirement for mitral valve surgery did not affect outcomes. Conclusions —Aortic valve repair in adult patients with congenital heart disease can be performed with minimal morbidity and mortality rates. The medium-term results of repair are acceptable, regardless of valvular or associated pathology. However, only 31 patients (57%) demonstrated long-term competence of the aortic valve, suggesting that most adult patients with congenital aortic valve disease will eventually require aortic valve replacement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".