MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2411968472

Mitral valve replacement with the Quattro stentless pericardial bioprosthesis: mid-term clinical and echocardiographic follow up.

2010· article· en· W2411968472 on OpenAlexaff
Bahaaldin Alsoufi, Maie Alshahid, Cedric Manlhiot, Mouhamed Al-Amri, Brian W. McCrindle, Bahaa M. Fadel, Zohair Al‐Halees

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral valve replacementEndocarditisMitral valveEjection fractionSurgeryProsthesisCardiologyHemodynamicsMitral regurgitationInternal medicineValve replacementHeart failure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Preservation of the subvalvar apparatus during mitral valve replacement (MVR) is associated with improved ventricular function and patient outcome. The Quattro valve is a chordally supported stentless mitral valve bioprosthesis that undergoes anticalcification treatment and is sutured to both annulus and papillary muscles heads, thus preserving annuloventricular continuity. The study aim was to assess the mid-term hemodynamic and functional results following MVR using the Quattro valve. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2005, a total of 76 patients received the Quattro valve at the authors' institution. A competing-risks methodology was used to determine the time-related prevalence of four mutually exclusive end-states: death; subsequent valve removal for dysfunction; subsequent valve removal for endocarditis; and survival without valve reoperation. Serial echocardiograms (n = 321) were collected, and regression models adjusted for repeated measures were used to model the longitudinal progression of the prosthesis mitral valve area (MVA), peak gradient (PG), mean gradient (MG), mitral regurgitation (MR) and ejection fraction (EF) over time. RESULTS: The median patient age was 33 years, and the most common underlying pathology rheumatic fever (46%). Of the patients, 35 (46%) had undergone a prior mitral surgery. A competing-risks analysis showed that, at 10 years after Quattro implantation, 11% of patients had died without subsequent replacement, 57% underwent valve replacement for dysfunction, 7% for endocarditis, and 26% remained alive without reoperation. Overall, 24 valves were explanted (five for endocarditis and 19 for valve malfunction). On multivariable analysis, risk factors for reoperation were prior mitral surgery (p = 0.03), especially prior MVR (p = 0.04). Serial echocardiographic data showed progressive increases in PG and MR, a decrease in MVA, and stable MG and EF. CONCLUSION: In a fairly young population, the longevity of the Quattro valve was limited by a high risk of endocarditis and reoperation requirement. In addition to valve degeneration, malfunction without structural change was a frequent cause of prosthesis replacement. This may be due to an unpredictable geometric ventricular adaptation to the prosthesis, with subsequent development of prosthesis insufficiency or subvalvar stenosis. Further evaluation is required to identify the best candidates to receive the Quattro bioprosthesis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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