MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399130793 · doi:10.21037/acs-2024-aae-0023

Early and mid-term outcomes of aortic annular enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4399130793 on OpenAlexafffund
Dustin Tanaka, Dominique Vervoort, Amine Mazine, Lina A. Elfaki, Jennifer Chung, Jan O. Friedrich, Maral Ouzounian

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineTerm (time)Meta-analysisMEDLINECardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is mounting evidence at experienced centers that aortic annular enlargement (AAE) procedures are safe adjuncts to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) that do not increase perioperative morbidity and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of AAE procedures on mid-term outcomes after SAVR. Methods: OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively. Comparative studies examining adult patients undergoing SAVR with and without AAE were eligible for inclusion. Studies involving aortic root replacement, Ross procedures, and Ozaki procedures were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed according to Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Random effects meta-analysis facilitated the quantitative synthesis. Results: A total of 2,765 records were retrieved. After full-text review, 15 eligible studies were identified for data extraction and synthesis. The dataset included a total of 216,654 patients (AAE: 7,967; no AAE: 208,687). Only mid-term outcomes were available. In unmatched and unadjusted studies, perioperative mortality was noted to be higher in the AAE group. However, this difference was not observed in studies with matching or adjusted outcomes. In both the unmatched and unadjusted studies, and the matched and adjusted studies, there were no statistically significant differences identified regarding perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or permanent pacemaker implantation. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences identified in mid-term mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95 to 1.11; P=0.49; I2=20% (matched/adjusted studies)], aortic valve reintervention [HR, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.27; P=0.86; I2=0% (matched/adjusted studies)], or heart failure [HR, 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.58; I2=25% (matched/adjusted studies)]. Conclusions: SAVR with AAE does not appear to be associated with increased perioperative morbidity or mortality. There is no conclusive indication that AAE enhances mid-term survival, freedom from reoperation, or freedom from heart failure after SAVR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.033
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Cardiothoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207