MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W47407944

Conventional aortic valve replacement remains a safe option in patients aged > or = 70 years: a 20-year experience.

2012· article· en· W47407944 on OpenAlexaff
Michael H. Yamashita, Jianming Ye, W.R. Eric Jamieson, Anson Cheung, Samuel V. Lichtenstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic valve replacementAortic valveStenosisMortality rateSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyPopulationAortic valve stenosisPediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Increased life expectancy has resulted in the elderly frequently presenting with severe aortic stenosis. It has therefore become important to define indications for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in this patient population. Thus, patients aged > or = 70 years undergoing conventional isolated AVR were evaluated for predictors of early and late mortality. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of prospectively collected data available from 1,061 consecutive patients (age range: 70-94 years) who underwent isolated AVR between 1982 and 2002. The patient age groups were 70-74 years (n = 466), 75-79 years (n = 367), and > or = 80 years (n = 228). The mean follow up was 6.0 +/- 4.4 years, and the total follow up 6,390 patient-years. Twenty-two variables were considered as potential risk factors for early and late mortality. RESULTS: Early mortality was higher in patients aged > or = 80 years than in those aged 70-79 years. Early mortality in patients aged > or = 80 years was lower between 1998 and 2002 than between 1982 and 1997. Multivariate predictors of early mortality were age > or = 80 years, operative status, previous intervention, renal failure, and mitral regurgitation. The early nonfatal complication rate was similar for patients aged 70-79 years and > or = 80 years, but late mortality was lower between 1998 and 2002 than between 1982 and 1997 in patients aged 70-79 years, and in those aged > or = 80 years. The 10-year actuarial survivals after AVR in patients aged 70-74, 75-79, and > or = 80 years were 54 +/- 3.0%, 43 +/- 3.8% and 17 +/- 3.9%, respectively. Multivariate predictors of late mortality were age 75-79 years, age > or = 80 years, peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Female gender was shown to be protective. CONCLUSION: Early mortality was higher in patients aged > or = 80 years undergoing AVR, though this has declined recently and is currently at an acceptable level. Other important predictors of mortality in elderly patients undergoing AVR are operative status, previous interventions, renal failure, mitral regurgitation, male gender, PVD, and COPD. Thus, conventional AVR remains a safe treatment option for the elderly patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→