Abstract 4131445: The Effects of Percutaneous Pulmonary Valve Implantation (PPVI) or Stenting on RV Diastolic Relaxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introductions: Pulmonary regurgitation is a diastolic phenomenon but little is known of the impact of RV-PA conduit interventions on RV diastolic function. We measured the acute effects of PPVI or stent implantation on RV diastolic relaxation with high-fidelity pressure catheters. Methods: Right and left heart pressure measurements with Millar Mikro-Cath pressure catheters in children undergoing RV-PA conduit intervention, who had also had an MRI. The relaxation time constant (RV-tau) was calculated as the time constant of the monoexponential pressure decay in the interval between the pressure at dP/dt min (P 0 ) to when the pressure fell to 10% of P 0 . Result: The age for PPVI (n=29) or stent (n=21) implantations were (mean ± sd): 14 ± 2.8 and 11.8 ± 4.2 years, respectively. RV-tau decreased 33% in the PPVI group and increased 11% in the Stent group (Table 1). The absolute value of RV dP/dt min decreased 9% in the Stent but not the PPVI group. The absolute value of LV dP/dt min increased 12% in the PPVI but not the Stent group. There was a small increase in peak VO 2 at the last follow-up (median 1.04 years, range 0.15-4.69 years) in the PPVI but not the Stent group compared to baseline (from 27.1 to 31.6 ml/kg/min, p = 0.01). The Δpeak VO 2 correlated with ΔRV-tau (r = 0.75, p = 0.01, n = 10) but not with ΔRV-PA gradient or pre pulmonary regurgitation fraction. Conclusions: PPVI results in faster RV diastolic relaxation. This may contribute to post-procedure enhanced exercise capacity more than either RV pressure and volume unloading alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".