MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122694182 · doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.08.021

Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement?☆

2008· review· en· W2122694182 on OpenAlexaff
W.R. Eric Jamieson, Virginia M. Gudas, Lawrence H. Burr, Michael T. Janusz, Guy Fradet, Hilton Ling, Eva Germann, Samuel V. Lichtenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral valveMitral valve replacementCardiologyInternal medicineMitral valve repairHazard ratioSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The durability of mitral bioprostheses has long been known to be inferior to aortic bioprostheses. Mitral valve reconstruction/repair is currently recommended for most mitral valve procedures. The choice of prostheses for non-reparable or failed mitral valve repairs has not been specified or given appropriate attention within the literature. The objective of this study is to address the role of bioprostheses in the specific subset of non-reparable or failed repair patients by using the knowledge of the general durability of mitral porcine bioprostheses, inclusive of the Carpentier-Edwards mitral porcine bioprosthesis. METHODS: The CE-SAV was implanted in 1135 patients (1175 operations) for mitral valve replacement (MVR) from 1982 to 2000. The mean age was 65.0+/-12.1 years (range 13-86 years). The mean follow-up was 6.4+/-4.5 years, 7555.9 patient-years and 98.3% complete. The evaluation considered freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) and freedom from composites of complications, as well as risk assessment. RESULTS: For the 51-60 year age group, the actual and actuarial freedom from SVD was, at 18 years, 56.0+/-4.1% and 14.7+/-5.8%; for the 61-70 year age group was, at 18 years, 69.6+/-2.6% and 26.5+/-5.9%, respectively. For the >70 group, at 15 years was 92.2+/-2.0% and 69.0+/-9.7%, respectively. There were a total of 256 SVD events with 31 fatalities and 226 reoperations with 10 fatalities (4.42%). The predictors of SVD were age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, p=0.0002), concomitant CAB (HR 0.66, p=0.020) and valve size (HR 1.08, p=0.034). The overall actual freedom, at 15-18 years, for >70 age group was, for valve-related reoperation, 94.3+/-1.5%; and for valve-related mortality was 87.8+/-2.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The CE-SAV mitral porcine bioprosthesis cannot be recommended as representative of prosthesis-type of choice for non-reparable or failed repair of native mitral valves for ages </=70 years. The CE-SAV mitral porcine bioprosthesis is satisfactory for implantation >70 years of age. The clinical performance of the CE-SAV is similar to other mitral bioprostheses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.116
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207