Comparison of four aortic bioprostheses: Hancock II vs. St Jude Trifecta vs. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna vs. Magna Ease—mid-term results (COMPARE SAVR study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the era of percutaneous aortic valve implantation, biological valves are the preferred prostheses implanted in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR). The aim was to present a real-life analysis of mid-term sAVR outcomes for the four aortic bioprostheses: the Hancock II, the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna, the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease and the Trifecta valve. Methods: This is a retrospective study based on data from the Polish National Cardiac Surgery Database. The study population comprised of 1,589 consecutive patients, of whom 432 were in the Hancock II group, 356 in the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna group, 427 in the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease group, and 374 in the Trifecta group. A comparison of the four groups was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis test with appropriate post hoc tests (Tukey HSD or Steel-Dwass, respectively). Results: Patients in the Hancock II group were older, had higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classes, had lower prevalence of hypertension and hyperlipidemia but higher prevalence of diabetes. The lowest mean valve size was observed in Trifecta group and the highest was in the Magna group (P<0.001). Survival analysis showed no significant differences in in-hospital mortality: 3.9% in Hancock II, 3.1% in Perimount, 3.3% in Magna and 2.1% in Trifecta group. Five-year mortality was significantly higher in Hancock II group (25.7%) compared to the other bioprostheses: 12.1% in Perimount, 9.1% in Magna and 10.70% in Trifecta group respectively. Conclusions: The 5-year mortality rate was significantly higher in the Hancock II group compared to the other bioprostheses. In contrast, Trifecta, Perimount Magna, and Magna Ease had similar 5-year mortality rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".