21 research outputs found

    Totally biological composite aortic stentless valved conduit for aortic root replacement: 10-year experience

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To retrospectively analyze the clinical outcome of a totally biological composite stentless aortic valved conduit (No-React<sup>Ÿ </sup>BioConduit) implanted using the Bentall procedure over ten years in a single centre.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between 27/10/99 and 19/01/08, the No-React<sup>Ÿ </sup>BioConduit composite graft was implanted in 67 patients. Data on these patients were collected from the in-hospital database, from patient notes and from questionnaires. A cohort of patients had 2D-echocardiogram with an average of 4.3 ± 0.45 years post-operatively to evaluate valve function, calcification, and the diameter of the conduit.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Implantation in 67 patients represented a follow-up of 371.3 patient-year. Males were 60% of the operated population, with a mean age of 67.9 ± 1.3 years (range 34.1-83.8 years), 21 of them below the age of 65. After a mean follow-up of 7.1 ± 0.3 years (range of 2.2-10.5 years), more than 50% of the survivors were in NYHA I/II and more than 60% of the survivors were angina-free (CCS 0). The overall 10-year survival following replacement of the aortic valve and root was 51%. During this period, 88% of patients were free from valved-conduit related complications leading to mortality. Post-operative echocardiography studies showed no evidence of stenosis, dilatation, calcification or thrombosis. Importantly, during the 10-year follow-up period no failures of the valved conduit were reported, suggesting that the tissue of the conduit does not structurally change (histology of one explant showed normal cusp and conduit).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The No-React<sup>Ÿ </sup>BioConduit composite stentless aortic valved conduit provides excellent long-term clinical results for aortic root replacement with few prosthesis-related complications in the first post-operative decade.</p

    A comparison and classification of grading approaches used in engineering education

    No full text
    Grades are intended to communicate achievement associated with a learning experience. Engineering educators in higher education often default to a particular grading approach without considering how the approach impacts student achievement. This work proposes a model for comparing and classifying commonly used grading systems in engineering higher education. Examples from the engineering education literature revealed five general categories of grading: 1) normative, score-based grading, 2) summative grading, 3) standards-based grading, 4) mastery-based grading, and 5) adaptive grading. (Note: variations in naming conventions were observed.) Each grading system was examined to determine key characteristics of the system and how student performance was ultimately assessed. A continuum of grading approaches was created after discovering that each system ranged in its intention to select and/or develop talent. The most widely adopted approaches to grading in engineering higher education, norm-based grading, were classified using purely selective processes (e.g., letter grades). Alternative, learning outcomes-based grading approaches differentiate themselves by the level in which they attempt to develop talent. This was determined by examining differences in how the grading system impacted sequencing of content, course pace, number of attempts to demonstrate achievement, scale and weight of performance, feedback provided, and basis for a final grade. The resulting continuum provides a tool for engineering educators to compare and discuss grading approaches in order to select an appropriate system for their course or program. Informed decisions on grading can have a critical impact in student retention and program improvement
    corecore