Progression of the ascending aorta diameter after surgical or transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ascending aorta (AA) dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) is related both to genetic and haemodynamic factors. The aim of this study is to compare late progression of AA dilatation in bicuspid AV patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Data of 189 consecutive patients who underwent AV replacement for severe bicuspid AV stenosis were prospectively collected. Patients who underwent SAVR were compared to patients who underwent TAVI. Indication to the procedure was validated by the institutional Heart Team. Aortic diameters were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiogram. Differences between preoperative and long-term follow-up AA diameters were compared in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2021, 143 (76%) patients underwent SAVR and 46 (24%) patients underwent TAVI. At 4.6 (standard deviation 1.7) years follow-up, patients in the TAVI group showed significantly lower survival (P = 0.00013) and event-free survival (P < 0.0001). AA diameter progression was lower in surgical compared to transcatheter patients, 0.95 (0.60, 1.30) vs 1.65 (0.67, 2.63) mm, P = 0.02. AA diameter progression indexed for body surface area and height was lower in the surgical group: 0.72 (0.38, 1.05) vs 1.05 (0.39, 1.71) mm/m2, P = 0.02, and 0.59 (0.36, 0.81) vs 1.11 (0.44, 1.78) mm/m, P = 0.001, respectively. At multivariable linear regression analysis transcatheter procedure, baseline aortic diameter and paravalvular leak were significantly associated with increased postoperative AA dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Bicuspid AV patients who underwent SAVR, showed significantly less long-term AA diameter progression than patients who underwent transcatheter procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".