Long-term results of bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement: the pericardial perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pericardial valve bioprostheses were introduced in early 1970s and were widely used in the 1980s. The longterm results with the Ionescu-Shiley valve, the first commercially available pericardial valve, were disappointing because of high rate cusp tears during the first decade after implantation. The enthusiasm for this type of bioprosthetic valve was further hampered by the premature failure of the Hancock pericardial valve. The long-term results of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve, which was introduced in 1981, indicated that that valve was durable and the issue of cusp tears had been resolved by an appropriate design. This knowledge prompted surgeons to revisit the merits of pericardial valves for mitral valve replacement and several other pericardial valves are now commercially available. The largest data on long-term results are with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial mitral valve. The reported freedom from structure valve failure ranged from 69% to 85% at 10 years in patient population with mean age of 60 to 70 years. Young age is a major determinant of valve failure, which is largely due to calcification. There are also long-term data, albeit more limited on the Sorin Pericarbon and Mitroflow valves used for mitral valve replacement. This paper review the published experience with various pericardial bioprosthetic valves used for mitral valve replacement during the past 3 decades.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".