Impact of preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction on postoperative left ventricular remodeling after mitral valve repair for degenerative disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Mitral valve repair has been associated with better preservation of left ventricular (LV) function, especially in the setting of degenerative regurgitation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of mitral valve repair on postoperative LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV remodeling as determined by LV end-systolic and diastolic diameters. METHODS: A prospective echocardiographic and clinical evaluation of 91 patients undergoing mitral valve repair for degenerative regurgitation between 1993 and 1998 was performed. Patients with normal preoperative LVEF (> or = 50%; group 1, n = 71) were compared with patients with decreased preoperative LVEF (< 50%; group 2, n = 20) one year after mitral valve repair. RESULTS: In group 1 patients, the LVEF was preserved at one year, while the LV end-systolic diameter was significantly reduced from 36 +/- 7 mm to 32 +/- 8 mm (p <0.05). There was a significant improvement in LVEF in group 2 patients (38 +/- 6% preoperative versus 50 +/- 12% at one year, p <0.05). The preoperative LV end-systolic diameter was significantly larger in group 2 patients (47 +/- 9 mm) than in group 1 patients (36 +/- 7 mm) (p <0.001), but decreased to normal values at one year after repair (38 +/- 7 mm, p <0.05). CONCLUSION: There was good preservation of LV function after mitral valve repair in group 1 patients. The LVEF significantly increased towards normal in patients with depressed LV function before repair. The LV systolic diameter was restored to normal within one year of repair, even in patients with poor LV function. Decreased preoperative LV function should not be a contraindication to mitral valve repair in patients with degenerative regurgitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".