Surgery versus surveillance for ascending aortic aneurysms in elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Whether elderly patients with aortic root or ascending aortic aneurysm (ATAA) would benefit from the new surgical size threshold of 5.0 cm is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the natural history of ATAA in elderly patients and to compare long-term outcomes of those who underwent initial surveillance versus surgery. Methods Patients age ≥75 years with an ATAA ≥40 mm were categorized into 2 groups: initial surgery and initial surveillance. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to identify independent predictors of long-term mortality. Results The study series comprised 300 patients, including 58 who underwent initial surgery and 242 who received surveillance between July 2010 and September 2022. In the surveillance cohort, the mean aneurysm growth rate was 0.10 cm/year. Comparing surveillance to surgery, at 8 years there was no difference in survival (mean, 77.8 ± 3.4% vs 71.8 ± 9.6%; P = .65). For 116 patients with an initial aneurysm diameter ≥5.0 cm, there was no difference in survival between the 2 groups at 8 years (76.5 ± 7.0% vs 68.4 ± 11.3%; P = .20). Larger body surface area (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.90; P = .01) and history of smoking (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.27-3.98; P = .01) were identified as predictors of long-term mortality. Conclusions In our series of elderly patients with ATAA, there was no difference in 8-year survival between initial surveillance and surgical management, with a high competing risk of nonaortic mortality. Surveillance may be a reasonable alternative to surgery for selected older adults with ATAA <5.5 cm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".