Outcomes of valve-sparing surgery in heritable aortic disorders: results from the AVIATOR registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Root reimplantation has been the favoured approach for patients with heritable aortic disorder requiring valve-sparring root replacement. In the past few years, root remodelling with annuloplasty has emerged as an alternative to root reimplantation in the general population. The aim of this study was to examine the late outcomes of patients with heritable aortic disorder undergoing valve-sparring root replacement and compare different techniques. METHODS: Using the AVIATOR registry (Aortic Valve Insufficiency and ascending aorta Aneurysm InternATiOnal Registry), data were collected from 5 North American and European centres. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the technique of valve-sparing used (root reimplantation, root remodelling with ring annuloplasty, root remodelling with suture annuloplasty and root remodelling alone). The primary endpoints were freedom from aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥2 and freedom from reintervention on the aortic valve. Secondary endpoints were survival and changes in annular dimensions over time. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were included in the study (reimplantation = 100, remodelling + ring annuloplasty = 76, remodelling + suture annuloplasty = 34, remodelling alone = 27). The majority of patients had Marfan syndrome (83%). Preoperative AR ≥2 was present in 41% of the patients. Operative mortality was 0.4% (n = 1). No differences were found between techniques in terms of postoperative AR ≥2 (P = 0.58), reintervention (P = 0.52) and survival (P = 0.59). Changes in aortic annulus dimension were significantly different at 10 years (P < 0.05), a difference that started to emerge 4 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, valve-sparring root replacement is a safe and durable procedure in patients with heritable aortic disorder. Nevertheless, root remodelling alone is associated with late annular dilatation. The addition of an annuloplasty, however, results in similar freedom from AR, reintervention, survival and changes in annulus size compared to reimplantation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".