Late Echocardiographic and Clinical Outcomes after Mitral Valve Repair for Degenerative Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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 ≤ 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. (J Card Surg 2010;25:9-15)
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".