Impact of exercise pulmonary hypertension on postoperative outcome in primary mitral regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The management of asymptomatic patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) remains controversial. Exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension (ExPHT) was recently reported as a strong predictor of rapid onset of symptoms. We hypothesised that ExPHT is a predictor of postoperative cardiovascular events in patients with primary MR. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and two patients with primary MR, no or mild symptoms (New York heart association (NYHA) ≤2), and no LV dysfunction/dilatation, were prospectively recruited in 3 centres and underwent exercise-stress echocardiography. The presence of ExPHT was defined as an exercise systolic pulmonary arterial pressure >60 mm Hg. All patients were closely followed up and operated on when indication for surgery was reached. Postoperative events were defined as the occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, cardiac-related hospitalisation or death. Among the 102 patients included, 59 developed ExPHT (58%). These patients were significantly older than those without ExPHT (p=0.01). During a mean postoperative follow-up of 50±23 months, 28 patients (26%) experienced a predefined cardiovascular event. Patients with ExPHT had significantly higher rate of postoperative events (39% vs 12%, p=0.005); the rate of events was still higher in these patients (32% vs 9%, p=0.013), even when excluding early postoperative AF (ie, within 48 h). Event-free survival was significantly lower in the ExPHT group (all events: 5-year: 60±8% vs 88±5%, p=0.007, events without early AF: 5-year: 67±7% vs 90±4%, p=0.02). Using Cox multivariable analysis, ExPHT remained independently associated with higher risk of postoperative events in all models (all p≤0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ExPHT is associated with increased risk of adverse cardiac events following mitral valve surgery in patients with primary MR.
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 | 0.000 | 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".