Mitral valve reconstruction: experience related to early and late mortality and reoperation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The present authors' experience with mitral valve reconstruction was reviewed to determine the influence of anatomical and functional abnormalities on mortality and reoperation. METHODS: Between 1991 and 2001, a total of 397 patients (mean age 59.0 +/- 13.4 years) underwent mitral valve reconstruction at the authors' institution. Patients were grouped according to the Carpentier functional classification as follows: type I, n = 88 (mean age 57.4 years; range: 24-81 years); type II, n = 169 (mean age 59.8 years; range: 16-81 years); type IIIa, n = 44 (mean age 52.8 years; range: 22-78 years); type IIIb, n = 85 (mean age 65.1 years; range: 33-82 years); and congenital (C), n = 11 (mean age 36.2 years; range: 18-65 years). RESULTS: The total follow up was 1,485.8 patient-years (pt-yr). Early mortality was: type I, 3.4% (n = 3); type II, 0; type IIIa; 2.3% (n = 1); type IIIb, 9.4% (n = 8); and C, 0 (p = 0.0028, IIIb > II and C). The late mortality was: type I, 2.1%/pt-yr (n = 6); type II, 1.1%/pt-yr (n = 7); type IIIa, 1.8%/pt-yr (n = 4); type IIIb, 4.3%/pt-yr (n = 12); and C, 1.7%/pt-yr (n = 1) (p = 0.0035 IIIb > II). The overall survival at 10 years was 79.6 +/- 4.2% (p <0.001, II > IIIb; p = 0.029, I > IIIb; p = 0.046, II > I). The reoperations were: type I, 1.4%/pt-yr (n = 4); type II, 1.9%/pt-yr (n = 12); type IIIa, 0.9%/pt-yr (n = 2); type IIIb, 0.4%/pt-yr (n = 1); and C, 0 (p = 0.0435 II > IIIb). Among the 19 reoperations there were 17 replacements, one re-repair, and one annuloplasty. The failures were predominantly type II, posterior (n = 5) and anterior (n = 5), or a combination (n = 2). The overall freedom from reoperation was 92.0 +/- 2.2% (p = NS between groups). CONCLUSION: Mitral valve reconstruction can be performed in all four functional categories with generally satisfactory results, except possibly for functional ischemic disease. The results of surgery for degenerative disease afford the opportunity for early surgical management, if proven techniques are adhered to in order to minimize the risk of reoperation. The repair of ischemic disease due primarily to ventricular dysfunction is in a state of evolution.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".