Patient-reported outcomes after aortic and mitral valve surgery – results from the DenHeart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical course, co-morbidity and age often differs between patients undergoing aortic and mitral valve surgery and this might affect patient-reported outcomes. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to describe differences in patient-reported physical and mental health and health-related quality of life after aortic valve or mitral valve surgery, and to identify demographic and clinical characteristics associated with worse patient-reported physical and mental health, and health-related quality of life. METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes were measured at discharge as a part of a national, cross-sectional study (DenHeart). Patient-reported outcome measures included: Short-Form-12, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, EuroQol-5D-5L, HeartQol and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Demographic and clinical information was obtained from national registers. RESULTS: Of 354 patients (65% men, mean age: 68 years), 79% underwent aortic valve surgery. Patients who had undergone aortic valve surgery had more symptoms of anxiety compared with patients who had undergone mitral valve surgery (34% vs 17%, p=0.003, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety cut-off score of eight). Being female was associated with worse patient-reported outcomes on all measures, whereas being unmarried was associated with worse physical health (Physical Component Score Short-Form-12) and symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). Length of stay was associated with worse symptoms on EuroQol-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale. Age and comorbidity were not associated with patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients who had undergone aortic valve and mitral valve surgery did not significantly differ in patient-reported health at discharge, except for symptoms of anxiety. Being female was the only characteristic associated with overall worse patient-reported outcomes at discharge.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".