Hemodynamic Performance at Rest and During Exercise After Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparison of Pulmonary Autografts Versus Aortic Homografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Ross procedure and aortic homografts have both been shown to have superior hemodynamic performance after valve replacement, but there have been few comparisons. Methods Sequential Doppler echocardiograms were performed up to 5 years after aortic valve replacement in 132 patients with the Ross procedure and 111 patients with an aortic homograft (AH). Measurements included assessment of valvular regurgitation and calculations of valve effective orifice area (EOA) and mean transvalvular gradients; the same measurements were also performed at the level of the pulmonary homograft in the Ross patients as well as during maximum exercise in 20 Ross patients and 14 AH patients. Results Aortic valve hemodynamics were stable during follow-up for both procedures and values at 1 year showed larger indexed EOAs (1.77±0.45 versus 1.42±0.35 cm 2 /m 2 , P <0.001) and lower gradients (2±3 versus 4±3 mm Hg) for the Ross procedure; similar findings were also observed during exercise (1.99±0.44 versus 1.36±0.39 cm 2 /m 2 , P <0.001 and 7±3 versus 17±11 mm Hg). Prevalence and severity of aortic regurgitation were low in both groups, although 4 patients (1 Ross, 3 AH) underwent a second operation for this reason. Also, various degrees of pulmonary homograft stenosis were found in 20% of Ross patients, 4 of which underwent a second operation. Conclusion Both procedures provide continued excellent hemodynamics of the aortic valve. The Ross procedure has a slight advantage, but this is somewhat counterbalanced by the deterioration of the pulmonary homograft in up to 20% of patients. Further studies aimed at clarifying longer-term outcomes as well as preventing pulmonary homograft stenosis with the Ross operation are clearly needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".