Surgical management of infective endocarditis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Although retrospective reviews evaluating the surgical management of infective endocarditis (IE) have been conducted in Europe and in the USA, few data exist regarding management of the condition in Canada. The study aim was to evaluate the surgical management of individuals with culture-positive active IE at a Canadian tertiary care university hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 74 patients (53 males, 21 females; mean age 56 +/- 14 years) with a preoperative diagnosis of acute IE between 1995 and 2003 at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Preoperative clinical variables evaluated included the Duke criteria for endocarditis, correlation between preoperative echocardiographic imaging and intraoperative findings, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Native valve endocarditis (NVE) was present in 60 patients, and prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) in 14. All patients met the Duke criteria for endocarditis. Correlation between preoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and surgical findings (vegetations 63%, abscesses 96%, leaflet perforation 100%) was superior when compared with preoperative transthoracic echocardiography (vegetations 43%, abscesses 75%, leaflet perforation 89%). There were low rates of postoperative morbidity (reoperation 8%, stroke 5%). Overall in-hospital mortality was 14% (seven NVE, 12%; three PVE, 21%). CONCLUSION: Herein is presented the largest and most current case series of patients treated surgically for active IE. The results demonstrate excellent agreement between preoperative TEE and intraoperative surgical findings in the current era of surgical management of this condition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".