Response to Repeat Percutaneous Balloon Mitral Valvotomy vs. Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Restenosis After Previous Balloon Mitral Valvotomy and Unfavorable Valve Characteristics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Response to Repeat Percutaneous Balloon Mitral Valvotomy vs. Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients with Restenosis after Previous Balloon Mitral Valvotomy and Unfavorable Valve Characteristics Aslanabadi N et al. Clin Cardiol. 2011;34:401–406. To the Editor: We read with great interest the report by Aslanabadi et al published in the Clinical Investigations section of this journal.1. We have some comments to make. The two groups were not randomized. Clearly, patients in the mitral valve replacement (MVR) group were sicker. They were older, with a higher New York Heart Association-Functional Class mitral valve area, mitral regurgitation grade, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure, as well as a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and lower left ventricular function, although left atrial sizes and pressures, echo scores, and transvalvular gradients were similar between the groups. In addition, criteria for choosing MVR or repeating percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy (re-PBMV) in these patients were “at the discretion of the attending physician and patient preference.” As such, it is not surprising that the 10-year survival was significantly higher in re-PBMV vs MVR (96% vs 72.7%, respectively, (P < 0.05) in this study. Having said this, in today's day and age it would be difficult to randomize patients to these 2 treatment modalities. Although we have shown in a previous study2. that in univariate analysis the major predictor of successful balloon mitral valvotomy for mitral restenosis was Wilkins score, we agree with the authors that the Wilkins score itself may not always be a very robust predictor of events after mitral valve procedures. In fact, we feel that practically, bicommissural calcium and the presence of severe mitral regurgitation are the only real contraindications for balloon mitral valvotomy. In a previous study, long-term outcome of patients with unilateral commissural calcification receiving balloon mitral commissurotomy showed no significant difference as compared to those with an absence of commissural calcification.3. We are curious to know what percentage of patients in either group had unicommissural or bicommissural calcium in this study. In addition, we believe that mitral restenosis is itself a heterogeneous condition, and the treatment response depends on whether the restenosis followed prior balloon mitral valvotomy or prior closed mitral valvotomy. In a recent paper,2. we had shown that following balloon mitral valvotomy for mitral restenosis, patients with prior balloon mitral valvotomy were found to have lesser event rates on follow-up compared to patients with prior closed mitral valvotomy, although procedural success rates are similar. We invite the authors' response to these comments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».