Percutaneous suture edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe a new approach to percutaneous mitral valve repair and an illustrative first-in-man experience, we introduce a suture mediated "double orifice", "edge-to-edge" procedure which can be an effective surgical therapy for mitral regurgitation (MR) in selected patient. METHODS AND RESULTS: We describe a novel percutaneous approach to double orifice mitral repair utilising an intra-cardiac suture based system. The procedure was performed in 15 patients in four international centres. Endovascular suture based double orifice mitral repair was feasible with an acute reduction in the severity of MR by > or = 1 grade in nine of 15 patients. At 30 days improvement in MR appeared durable in six patients. Clinical utility was limited by technical difficulties, the inadequacies of current imaging modalities and suture dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous endovascular suture based cardiac repair is feasible. However, in utilising the current device clinical benefit was limited and the repair not durable. In the future, similar endovascular approaches may enable more complex cardiac repair.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".