Functional Significance of Elevated Mitral Gradients After Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have observed that elevated mitral gradients can develop in some patients after mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We screened 275 patients who had mitral valve repair involving >1 leaflet scallop between October 2001 and July 2010. Mitral valve hemodynamics were assessed at rest and at peak exercise using the cycle ergometer. B-type natriuretic peptide levels were measured at rest and after exercise. The patients also performed a 6-minute walk test and short-form 36-Item Health Survey questionnaire. We enrolled 110 patients, with resting mean mitral diastolic gradient of ≤3 mm Hg in 35 patients (group 1) and >3 mm Hg indicative of elevated mitral gradients in 75 patients (group 2). Posterior mitral leaflet plication (P=0.04) and the use of a complete mitral annuloplasty ring (P<0.0001) were associated with elevated mitral gradients. Group 2 patients had larger left atrial volume (P=0.02), higher mitral gradients at peak exercise and higher pulmonary artery systolic pressure at rest and at peak exercise, and lower exercise capacity (101±40 versus 122±51 W; P=0.02). Group 2 patients also had higher B-type natriuretic peptide levels and lower scores in 3 short-form 36-Item Health Survey health concepts. Multivariate regression analyses showed that mitral valve area was an independent predictor of maximum exercise capacity (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: After mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation, elevated mitral gradients is not uncommon and is associated with worse intracardiac hemodynamics, higher B-type natriuretic peptide levels, lower exercise capacity, and poorer quality of life. Further refinement in the surgical technique may reduce the incidence of this complication.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".