Intermediate-term Outcomes Following a Case Series of Reoperations for Medtronic Freestyle Stentless Aortic Valves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Data are limited on long-term outcomes in patients who have undergone a reoperation following failure of a stentless aortic valve. Methods: Between 2006 and 2016, a retrospective analysis was performed on 24 patients who underwent open aortic valve replacement surgery for a failed stentless aortic valve prosthesis at Health Sciences North, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was a low mortality rate from cardiac-related deaths after 5 years. Results: All patients underwent insertion of a Medtronic Freestyle bioprosthesis (Minneapolis, MN) implanted using the modified subcoronary technique for their initial operation. The interval from the first operation to the stentless redo surgery ranged from 6 to 13 years. Aortic valve reoperation was performed for structural valve deterioration in 96% (n = 23) of the cases. Reoperations involved a removal of the stented valve leaflets and standard aortic valve replacement within the stentless casing in 20% (n = 5) of the cases, with the remaining cases requiring complete removal of the stentless prosthesis and aortic valve replacement. In those in whom a complete removal of the stentless valve was possible (n = 19), no disruption of the native aortic root occurred, with a 0% rate of conversion to a Bentall procedure. No intraoperative mortality occurred. The 30-day and 10-year operative mortality rates were 4% and 16%, respectively. Conclusions: Redo surgery for failing stentless valves can be done with relatively low risk and with acceptable long-term outcomes without resorting to root-replacement techniques.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".