Feasibility of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With and Without Aortic Root Enlargement, Gated CT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The feasibility of valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV‐TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and the impact of aortic root enlargement (ARE) remain unclear. This study assesses the anatomical feasibility of Viv TAVR post‐SAVR, with and without ARE through detailed pre‐ and postoperative gated CT scans. Methods We analyzed 62 patients undergoing SAVR ( n = 31) or SAVR + ARE ( n = 31) between September 2022 and May 2024. Pre‐ and postoperative gated CT scans were used to measure annular area, sinus of Valsalva (SOV) dimensions, coronary heights, and virtual valve‐to‐coronary (VTC) and valve‐to‐sinotubular junction (VTSTJ) distances. High‐risk ViV‐TAVR anatomy was defined as VTC < 4 mm or VTSTJ < 2 mm. Four enlargement techniques were used (Y‐Incision, Manouguian, Nicks and replacement of the coronary sinus). Results Female patients were more prevalent in the SAVR + ARE group (61% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.001). Preoperatively and compared to the SAVR cohort, SAVR + ARE had a smaller annular area‐derived diameter (23 ± 2 mm vs. 26.8 ± 2.2 mm, p < 0.001) and SOV dimensions (28.8 ± 2 vs. 32.8 ± 3.6, p ≤ 0.001) and, both cohorts had coronary heights of ≥ 14 mm. Postoperatively, both groups had a significant reduction in coronary heights by at least 7–9 mm ( p < 0.001). On the contrary, the SOV dimension increased significantly by +3 mm in the SAVR + ARE group (< 0.001), while it decreased numerically in the SAVR‐only cohort (0.07). Similarly, the majority of both groups were considered low risk for future ViV TAVR (SAVR: 24/31, 74%) and (SAVR + ARE: 22/31, 71%), while 22.6% (7/31) of SAVR and 29% (9/31) of SAVR + ARE were considered anatomically high risk. Conclusion While most patients who had SAVR, with or without ARE, were anatomically feasible for ViV TAVR, postoperative CT scans identified high‐risk anatomy in approximately 25% of cases. Pre‐ and post‐SAVR CT imaging offers insights into surgical planning and lifetime management of aortic valve disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".