Triple-valve surgery: clinical results of a three-decade experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Triple-valve disease is a challenge that surgeons face periodically, yet the clinical benefits of triple-valve surgery, in relation to the high operative risk, are not well known. The study aims were to describe the early and late mortality associated with triple-valve surgery, to assess the risk factors, and describe the long-term outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 178 consecutive triple-valve surgeries performed at the Montreal Heart Institute between 1977 and 2008 was performed. The median follow up was 5.0 years (inter-quartile range: 1.6 to 9.4 years). RESULTS: Among 170 patients (122 females, 48 males; mean age 60 +/- 11 years), the preoperative NYHA functional class was > or = III/IV in 93% of cases; 61% of the patients had undergone previous cardiac surgery. The operative mortality was 12% between 1999 and 2008, and 25% between 1977 and 1998 (p = 0.033). Independent risk factors between 1999 and 2008 period included tricuspid regurgitation severity (OR = 13.71; p = 0.03) and the presence of a right intraventricular pacemaker lead (OR = 11.25; p = 0.039). Survival rates at five and 10 years were 61 +/- 4% and 38 +/- 5%, respectively. A lower left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge was associated with a poor late survival, independent of patient age and gender (OR = 0.95; p = 0.035). Twenty-three patients (18%) required reoperation during the follow up period, at which time the NYHA functional class was improved compared to baseline (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although triple-valve surgery is associated with substantial operative mortality, this situation has improved significantly over the years. Currently, survivors experience a significant improvement in their cardiac functional capacity, justifying the continued use of triple-valve procedures, though preferably earlier during the course of the disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".