Tricuspid Valve Repair With an Annuloplasty Ring Results in Improved Long-Term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term results of tricuspid valve (TV) repair with or without an annuloplasty ring. METHODS AND RESULTS: 702 patients underwent TV repair at our institution (1978 to 2003), of which 493 had, predominantly, a De Vega procedure (no ring) and 209 had an annuloplasty ring (ring). TV pathology was functional (secondary) in 74% of patients. Concomitant procedures consisted of mitral valve surgery in 80% of patients, aortic valve surgery in 33%, and coronary bypass in 14%. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were obtained. Follow-up was 99% complete and was 5.9+/-4.9 (mean+/-SD) years long. Ring patients were younger (55+/-14 versus 59+/-14 years; P=0.001) and less likely to have coronary artery disease (10% versus 17%; P=0.02), more likely to be female (75% versus 65%; P=0.01) and having had previous cardiac surgery (56% versus 42%; P=0.001). Operative times were similar between the 2 groups. Long-term survival, event-free survival and freedom from recurrent TR were significantly better in the ring group, and there was a trend toward fewer TV reoperations. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the use of an annuloplasty ring was an independent predictor of long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5 to 1.0; P=0.03) and event-free survival (HR, 0.8; CI, 0.6 to 1.0; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of an annuloplasty ring in patients undergoing tricuspid valve repair is associated with improved survival and event-free survival.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".