Transapical mitral valve implantation after unclipping of a MitraClip: a glimpse into the future and treatment considerations in mitral regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) is a novel approach that may enable a less invasive effective reduction of mitral regurgitation (MR). A limitation of the MitraClip is that definitive implantation of a clip precludes future therapy with TMVI. The purpose of this paper is to describe contemporary treatment considerations in patients with mitral valve regurgitation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this report we describe an attempted MitraClip implantation which resulted in no reduction of MR severity. There was a consensus that additional clips would probably not be effective. MitraClip implantation was therefore abandoned and the clip was removed, allowing subsequent successful TMVI with the Tiara™ system three weeks later. Echocardiography revealed secure seating of the prosthesis with good mitral valve function, trivial paravalvular leakage and transvalvular gradient of 3 mmHg. The patient recovered rapidly and was discharged four days post implant. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical approach towards high-risk patients with significant MR may change in the next few years. In selected patients, in whom an initial attempt with MitraClip implantation results in only limited efficacy, the clip may be retrieved during the index procedure to allow subsequent TMVI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".