MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13847: The Ross Procedure versus Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Network Meta-Analysis

2022· article· en· W4380786106 on OpenAlexaff
Yujiro Yokoyama, Toshiki Kuno, Nana Toyoda, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Hisato Takagi, Shinobu Itagaki, Michael Ibrahim, Maral Ouzounian, Ismaı̈l El-Hamamsy, Shinichi Fukuhara

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic valve replacementHazard ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicineCardiologyRoss procedureMeta-analysisVentricular outflow tractAortic valveSurgeryRandomized controlled trialStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there is limited data comparing it to conventional aortic valve replacement options. Objectives: To compare outcomes of the Ross procedure, mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (M-AVR, B-AVR). Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identifyrandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched studies (PSMs) that investigated outcomes of patients ≥16-year-old undergoing the Ross procedure, M-AVR or B-AVR. Result: The systematic literature search identified 2 RCTs and 8 PSMs involving a total of 4,812 patients (Ross: n=1,991; M-AVR: n=2,019; B-AVR: n=802). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the Ross procedure group compared with M-AVR (hazard rate (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]=0.58 [0.35-0.97], P=0.035) and BAVR (HR [95% CI]=0.32 [0.18-0.59], P <0.001) groups. The reintervention rate was lower in the Ross and M-AVR groups compared with B-AVR (HR [95% CI] =0.31 [0.15-0.65], P=0.002, HR [95% 272 CI] =0.15 [0.05-0.41], P< 0.001, respectively), while it was higher after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR group (HR [95% CI] =2.12 [1.04-4.33], P=0.039). However, post-Ross reinterventions included both autograft and right ventricular outflow tract. Major bleeding rate was lower after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Long-term stroke rate was lower following the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR and B-AVR. The rate of endocarditis was also lower after the Ross procedure compared with B-AVR. Conclusion: Improved long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure are demonstrated compared with conventional M-AVR and B-AVR options. These results highlight a need to enhance the recognition of the Ross procedure and revisit current guidelines regarding the optimal valve substitute for young and middle-aged patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.036
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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 venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→