Two‐step approach of percutaneous closure of a paravalvular leak and atrial septal defect after mitral valve reoperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe paravalvular leakage following mitral valve replacement, a rare but potentially serious complication, may result in heart failure and significant hemolysis. Reoperation is considered standard of care. However, in selected patients, re-do sternotomy carries excessively high surgical risk. Percutaneous closure of paravalvular leaks has become a viable option for these patients. We present a case of a highly symptomatic 42-year-old male who underwent successful percutaneous closure of two paravalvular leaks and a post-operative atrial septal defect after re-do mitral valve replacement surgery. As access to the left atrium was expected to be difficult following percutaneous atrial septal defect closure, a two-step approach of paravalvular leak closure followed by atrial septal defect closure was chosen. Difficulties of atrial septal defect closure following closure of a paravalvular leak next to the inter-atrial septum will be discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.019 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".