MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Late Echocardiographic and Clinical Outcomes after Mitral Valve Repair for Degenerative Disease

2009· article· en· W2065812805 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMitral valve repairMitral valveConcomitantMitral regurgitationCardiologyInternal medicineSurgeryMitral valve replacement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Mitral valve repair is the procedure of choice for severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR). The objective of this study was to review prospectively gathered echocardiographic and clinical results with mitral valve repair for degenerative disease. METHODS: Between May 1995 and July 2004, 403 patients underwent mitral valve repair for degenerative disease (mean age 63 +/- 12 years, 72% males). Concomitant procedures included CABG (29%), radiofrequency left-sided maze procedure (8%), aortic valve replacement (6%), and tricuspid valve repair (4%). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 0.4% for patients with isolated mitral valve repair and 5.1% for patients with mitral valve repair and concomitant procedure (p = 0.003). Five-year survival was higher for isolated mitral valve repair compared to mitral valve repair with a combined procedure (92 +/- 2% vs. 76 +/- 5%; p < 0.001). Pulmonary artery pressure and left atrial and left ventricular end-diastolic diameters were significantly improved following mitral valve repair (all p <or= 0.005) and this was sustained afterward. The freedom from severe (3+ or 4+) and moderate-severe (2+, 3+, or 4+) MR was 95% and 77% at 5 years, respectively, whereas the freedom from reoperation was 96 +/- 1% at 5 years. Significant predictors of moderate-severe MR recurrence were cardiac dilatation, anterior leaflet prolapse, and concomitant procedure, whereas mitral valve disease amenable to posterior leaflet resection had a lower risk of MR recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent clinical outcomes can be obtained using standard techniques of mitral valve repair of the degenerative valve. MR recurrence is low but nonnegligible, emphasizing the necessity for long-term postoperative echocardiographic follow-up 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.034
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.337 · 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