Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The author reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. The author reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. I read with much interest the Invited Expert Opinion on “Left Ventricular Rupture After Mitral Valve Replacement” by Dr Tirone David in the September issue of the JTCVS Open.1David T.E. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacement.JTCVS Open. 2020; 3: 48-49Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar It emphasizes the deadly nature of the complication and the technical complexity of the repair, a task sometimes impossible. Often, the external site of rupture is situated far away from the originating internal point that, however, is not always identifiable. Also, there are some other causes of iatrogenic left ventricular rupture. I write this letter to bring to the attention of the readers of the Journal one case that, in my opinion, highlights the difficulties identified by Dr David and was treated by a previously undescribed approach (however recently reported elsewhere).2Antunes M.J. Bernardo J.E. Pinto C.S. A gauze-pad wrapping of the heart can save a patient's life.Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 36: 834-835Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar I refer to a 79-year-old female patient who had surgery for severe mitral valve regurgitation caused by posterior leaflet prolapse and calcified annulus. She also had hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy with a left ventricular outflow tract gradient of 45 to 50 mm Hg. The cardiomyopathy was initially addressed with an extended myectomy, performed from the aortic root. After unsuccessful repair that resulted in systolic anterior motion, the mitral valve was replaced by a bioprosthesis, with partial preservation of the posterior leaflet. The patient had an uneventful immediate postoperative course, but on the second day there was a sudden severe drainage of blood, which prompted emergency pericardial exploration, where a large subepicardial hematoma was identified in the posterior left ventricular wall. Having suspected rupture of the atrioventricular junction, cardiopulmonary bypass was initiated, the left atrium was opened, and the mitral prosthesis excised from its annular implantation. No rupture could be identified at this place. An alternative diagnosis was rupture at the site of the myectomy, but neither this nor any other site was internally identified. The mitral prosthesis was reimplanted and the atrium closed. As the hemorrhage from the back of the heart persisted, an attempt was made at controlling it from the epicardial side by using a patch of TachoSil (human fibrinogen + thrombin; Nycomed, Baxter, Zurich, Switzerland) to fill the subepicardial hematoma cavity and covering the surface with SURGICEL (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). This was repeatedly unsuccessful. In despair, a double-layer ordinary surgical gauze pad was used to completely wrap the ventricular wall, which resulted in immediate cessation of the bleeding. The gauze pad was left in place for planned removal later, which was done on the 10th day. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged home 7 days later. This case reminds me of a Brazilian surgeon and friend who, also in absolute despair, in a similar case, used common-use superglue (cyanoacrylate) to achieve adherence of a bovine pericardial patch to the epicardium. These cases highlight the need to exercise some surgical inventiveness spirit when all else fails. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacementJTCVS OpenVol. 3PreviewVentricular rupture after mitral valve replacement (MVR) is a rare and often a fatal complication of this operation. This problem was first presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American College Chest Physicians in Toronto, on October 22, 1973, by Dr Robert L. Treasure and colleagues.1 Those investigators collected 7 cases from 3 hospitals and, based on the site of the ventricular tear, they classified the ventricular ruptures in type 1 (atrioventricular groove) and type 2 (midventricular wall). Full-Text PDF Open Access
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».