Clinical outcome after isolated tricuspid valve replacement: 20-year experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the early and late results of isolated tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). DESIGN AND SETTING: All isolated TVRs performed at the Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec between January 1978 and January 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. Follow-up data on patients were obtained through the valve clinic. PARTICIPANTS: From a total of 79 TVR and 375 tricuspid annuloplasties performed during the study period, 29 patients who underwent 32 isolated TVRs (six mechanical valves and 26 bioprostheses) were included. Patient age ranged from 25 to 70 years (mean 48), and 62% were female. Twenty-seven patients (84%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes III and IV. Previous valve surgery had been performed in 22 patients (69%) among whom nine had undergone TVR. RESULTS: Postoperatively, a permanent pacemaker was implanted in nine patients (28%), and reoperation because of bleeding was required in two patients. Mean follow-up was 67.7 months (93% complete). Serial echocardiography showed prosthesis dysfunction in three patients, requiring two valve re-replacements at 12.8 and 7.7 years after initial surgery. All patients, except three, showed an improvement of their NYHA class. Six patients (19%) died in hospital and seven patients died during late follow-up at a mean of 38.1 months after surgery, including one valve-related death (mechanical valve thrombosis). The actuarial survival rate of all patients was 63% after five years and 47% after 10 years. CONCLUSION: Isolated TVR remains a high risk procedure. Most survivors, however, should expect a better quality of life by the improvement in their NYHA class.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".