MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120645571 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs499

Concomitant mitral valve surgery in patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction for ischaemic cardiomyopathy

2012· article· en· W2120645571 on OpenAlexaff
Reuben Jeganathan, Manjula Maganti, Mitesh Badiwala, Vivek Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral valve repairPerioperativeCardiologyMitral valveInternal medicineMitral valve replacementMitral regurgitationConcomitantSurgeryCardiac surgeryInotrope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Ischaemic mitral valve regurgitation is associated with a significant reduction in survival and its treatment in patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction is usually associated with higher perioperative morbidity and mortality. We evaluated our 11-year experience in this cohort of patients. METHODS: Between January 2000 and December 2010, a total of 282 patients underwent surgical ventricular reconstruction, of which 45 (16%) had concomitant mitral valve surgery. The data was retrospectively analyzed to identify variables that could predict early mortality. RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.4% (n = 18), of which 5.1% (n = 12) occurred in patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction and 13.3% (n = 6) in patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction + mitral valve surgery (P = 0.05). Patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction + mitral valve surgery had poorer LV function (P < 0.01) and advanced NYHA class IV symptoms (P = 0.02) compared with patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction. These patients had a higher requirement for postoperative inotropic (P < 0.01) and IABP support (P < 0.01) and were more likely to suffer from low cardiac output syndrome (P < 0.01). In patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction + mitral valve surgery, 34 patients had mitral valve repair and 11 patients had mitral valve replacement. The mortality was 17.6% (n = 6) vs 0% (P = 0.31) in the mitral valve repair vs mitral valve replacement groups, respectively. The cohort of patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction + mitral valve repair had poorer LV function and more advanced symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing surgical ventricular reconstruction have excellent early outcomes. However, there are patients that are at an increased operative risk, such as those with concomitant ischaemic mitral regurgitation that might be better served with other surgical modalities, such as ventricular assist device or heart transplantation. The suggested algorithm based on current evidence provides a stepwise approach when dealing with patients with ischaemic mitral regurgitation ± left ventricular remodelling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207