Stented versus stentless bioprostheses in aortic valve stenosis: effect on left ventricular remodelling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: \n \nWhether the use of stentless aortic bioprostheses improves hemodynamics more than stented bioprostheses in the small aortic root is still a matter of debate. \n \nMETHODS: \n \nEarly- and mid-term effects were compared between 2 different types of stentless bioprotheses and 1 type of stented bioprosthesis for left ventricular remodelling. The effects of the bioprotheses were studied by echocardiography in 68 patients (age, 74 +/- 7 years) with aortic annulus diameter < or =23 mm who were undergoing prosthesis implantation due to aortic isolated stenosis. Stented bioprostheses (Carpentier-Edwards Perimount [CEP]) were implanted in 36 subjects and stentless bioprostheses (18 Toronto SPV and 14 Shelhigh Super Stentless) were implanted in 32 subjects. \n \nRESULTS: \n \nA progressive and similar decrease in left ventricular mass of 30% was observed in both stented and stentless bioprostheses at 12 months. A progressive increase in transprosthetic effective orifice area and a decrease in transprothetic pressure gradient were observed at 3, 6, and 12 months in the Toronto group, but these variables showed improvement only at 3 months in the CEP and Shelhigh groups. No mortality occurred during surgery or during the 1-year follow-up period. \n \nCONCLUSIONS: \n \nOur results confirmed good feasibility of aortic stented and stentless bioprostheses implantation in the elderly population. A 30% decrease in left ventricular mass occurred in the early- and mid-term (12 months) periods after surgery with all 3 types of bioprostheses. Advantages consisting of a progressive increase in transprosthetic effective orifice area and a decrease of the transprosthetic pressure gradient were observed in the Toronto group in comparison to the CEP and Shelhigh groups. These observations may help surgeons in choosing bioprostheses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".