Higher-risk mitral valve operations after previous sternotomy: endoscopic, minimally invasive approach improves patient outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Reoperative mitral valve (MV) surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; however, endoscopic minimally invasive surgical techniques may preserve the surgical benefits of conventional mitral operations while potentially reducing perioperative risk and length of stay (LOS) in hospital. Methods: We compared the outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent reoperative MV surgery between 2000 and 2014 using a minimally invasive endoscopic approach (MINI) with those of patients who underwent a conventional sternotomy (STERN). The primary outcome was in-hospital/30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included blood product transfusion, LOS in hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU), and postoperative complications. Results: We included 132 patients in our study: 40 (mean age 68 ± 14 yr, 70% men) underwent MINI and 92 (62 ± 13 yr, 40% men) underwent STERN. The MINI group had significantly more comorbidities than the STERN group. While there were no significant differences in complications, all point estimates suggested lower mortality and morbidity in the MINI than the STERN group (in-hospital/30-day mortality 5% v. 11%, p = 0.35; composite any of 10 complications 28% v. 41%, p = 0.13). Individual complication rates were similar between the MINI and STERN groups, except for intra-aortic balloon pump requirement (IABP; 0% v. 12%, p = 0.034). MINI significantly reduced the need for any blood transfusion (68% v. 84%, p = 0.036) or packed red blood cells (63% v. 79%, p = 0.042), fresh frozen plasma (35% v. 59%, p = 0.012) and platelets (20% v. 40%, p = 0.024). It also significantly reduced median hospital LOS (8 v. 12 d, p = 0.014). An exploratory propensity score analysis similarly demonstrated a significantly reduced need for IABP (p < 0.001) and a shorter mean LOS in the ICU (p = 0.046) and in hospital (p = 0.047) in the MINI group. Conclusion: A MINI approach for reoperative MV surgery reduces blood product utilization and hospital LOS. Possible clinically relevant differences in perioperative complications require assessment in randomized clinical trials.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".