MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030632057 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht345

Left ventricular contractile reserve in asymptomatic primary mitral regurgitation

2013· article· en· W2030632057 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julien Magné, Haïfa Mahjoub, Raluca Dulgheru, Philippe Pîbarot, Luc Piérard, Patrizio Lancellotti

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyAsymptomaticInternal medicineMitral regurgitationRegurgitation (circulation)Ventricular function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: There are very few data regarding the assessment and prognostic value of left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) in asymptomatic patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR). We aimed to quantify LVCR and to evaluate its usefulness for risk stratification in asymptomatic patients with primary MR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Comprehensive resting and exercise (EX) transthoracic echocardiography, including two-dimensional speckle tracking quantification, were performed in 115 consecutive asymptomatic patients with ≥ moderate degenerative MR and no LV dysfunction/dilatation. Left ventricular contractile reserve was defined as an EX-induced increase in LV ejection fraction (LVCR(LVEF)) ≥ 4% or in LV global longitudinal strain (LVCR(GLS)) ≥ 2%. LVCR(LVEF) was present in 54 patients (47%) and LVCR(GLS) in 58 (50%). The brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level was significantly correlated with EX-induced changes in GLS (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001), but not in LVEF (r = 0.09, P = 0.31). Patients with no LVCR(GLS) had significant lower 3-year cardiac event-free survival (42 ± 8 vs. 69 ± 7%, P = 0.0008). In contrast, there was no significant difference in outcome regarding to the presence or absence of LVCR(LVEF) (60 ± 7 vs. 51 ± 8%, P = 0.40). The multivariable Cox proportional hazard model showed that the absence of LVCR(GLS) was a strong independent predictor of cardiac events (HR = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.05-4.76, P = 0.037), even after adjustment for Ex-echo variables and BNP level. The association between LVCR(GLS) and outcome remained significant (HR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.3, P = 0.01) after further adjustment for the resting echocardiographic parameters included in the ESC Guidelines. CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic primary MR, LVCR seems to be better assessed using EX-induced changes in LV myocardial longitudinal function rather than in LVEF. In patients with preserved LV function, the absence of LVCR is independently associated with two-fold increase in risk of cardiac events. Left ventricular contractile reserve may be useful to improve risk stratification and clinical decision-making in these patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations134
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207