MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18767: Preoperative Echocardiographic Predictors of Left Ventricular Remodeling After Surgical Correction of Mitral Regurgitation Caused by Leaflet Prolapse

2012· article· en· W2242924077 on OpenAlexaff
Jimmy MacHaalany, Julie Parenteau, Isaïe-Nicolas Dubois-Sénéchal, Olivier F. Bertrand, Michelle Dubois, Pierre Voisine, Mario Sénéchal

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral regurgitationVentricular remodelingCardiologyInternal medicineFunctional mitral regurgitationRegurgitation (circulation)Mitral valve prolapseSurgeryHeart failureMitral valveEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study sought to determine whether preoperative echocardiography analysis before mitral valve surgery is predictive of postoperative left ventricular dysfunction in patients undergoing valve surgery for severe mitral regurgitation caused by leaflet prolapse. Methods: In 72 consecutive patients without coronary artery disease undergoing valve repair (n=29, 40%) or replacement (n=43, 60%), preoperative, early postoperative (1-2 days) and late postoperative (4.5 ± 2.5 months and 18 ± 8.0 months) echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular (LV) dimensions, volumes and ejection fractions (EF) were measured. Patients were stratified and analysed in 3 different groups according to their respective baseline LVEF (group 1: EF ≥ 60, group 2: EF = 45-59%, group 3: EF < 45%). Results: Over a mean follow-up period of 546 ± 244 days, our cohort’s echocardiographic parameters showed the following reductions from baseline: LVEF: 56% ± 8 to 53% ± 9 (p<0.0001), LV end-diastolic dimension: 58.0mm ± 8.0 to 47.0mm ± 5.0 (p<0.0001) and LV end-systolic dimension: 41.0mm ± 8.0 to 33.0mm ± 6.0 (p<0.0001) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that only those with LVEF ≥ 60% recovered to a completely normal EF. Additionally, two-third of the observed changes in LV diameters and volumes occurred in the first 6 months. No difference in remodelling parameters was seen during the follow-up period between patients who underwent mitral valve replacement versus mitral valve repair. Finally, multivariate analysis demonstrated that pre-operative LVEF is an independent predictor of a poor post-operative LVEF (OR = 1.504 [1.249 - 1.966; p<0.0001]). Conclusions: In patients with pure severe mitral regurgitation due to leaflet prolapse, significant positive LV remodelling can be expected irrespective of patient’s baseline EF. Remodelling is more important in the first 6 months after surgery but is usually progressive and occurs over a long follow-up period (≥ 12 months); however, only those with baseline EF ≥ 60% will usually recover to a normal EF. This reinforces our understanding that contemplation of early surgical intervention for severe mitral regurgitation secondary to leaflet prolapse will most likely yield a favourable effect on LV 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→