Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MVIV) implantation is an emerging technique for reoperative mitral valve replacement in high-risk patients. Clear guidelines on the use of transcatheter MVIV implantation are yet to be determined. In this review, we report our own experience as well as the recent available literature on this procedure. RECENT FINDINGS: Since 2010, four case series of three or more patients have been reported with a total number of 23 patients. We also include unpublished data of 13 additional patients, who recently had MVIV implantation at our institution. Mean age was 78.45 ± 9.2 years with a median follow-up ranging from 70 to 357 days. Mean The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 14.1 ± 7.1%. All patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV. Thirty days mortality was 7.5% (n = 3) and late mortality was 10% (n = 4). All patients had improvement in postoperative NYHA class to I/II following MVIV implantation. The mitral regurgitation grade was reduced from 3+ or 4+ preoperatively to a grade of 0 or 1 postoperatively. There was no structural valve deterioration reported in the follow-up period in any of the studies. SUMMARY: The available literature supports the use of transcatheter MVIV implantation in selected high-risk patients with favorable results. Although there are no available long-term data on the procedure, the early and mid-term outcomes are excellent with no evidence of structural valve deterioration in the available follow-up period.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".