The real impact of randomized clinical trials in heart valve surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to evaluate the findings of clinical trials in cardiac valve surgery and to determine the real impact in standard of care. Also, publications on randomized clinical trials were reviewed as to integrity and validity. Nineteen randomized clinical trials were identified in 11 areas of operative and clinical management. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: The Veterans Affairs and Edinburgh Heart Valve Trials confirmed the guidelines for indications for bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses. Even current prostheses have advanced technologies but the same valve-related complications determine indications. Randomized clinical trials of mechanical prostheses failed to determine prosthesis superiority. Bioprostheses of specific manufacturers contribute sub-optimal hemodynamics in small sizes. Two trials showed lack of superiority between aortic stented and stentless bioprostheses. Autografts, not allografts, are indicated for children because of structural valve deterioration of allografts. Atrial ablation surgery with concomitant mitral valve reconstruction/replacement is safe and efficacious with at least two energy sources. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement does not provide superior results to conventional surgery. Patient-managed anticoagulation provides the most favourable thromboembolic and hemorrhagic rates with mechanical prostheses. Prosthesis sewing cuff impregnation with a bactericidal agent to reduce the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis was stopped because of increased incidence of major paravalvular leak requiring reoperation. SUMMARY: Randomized clinical trials, although limited in number, have provided advancement of the standard of care. Randomized clinical trials are indicated in the management of mild to moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation and evaluation of new transcatheter technologies to conventional surgery.
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 | 0.254 | 0.569 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".