P200Long term outcome following mitral valve repair or replacement: the impact of concomitant atrial fibrillation treatment and sinus rhythm restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) Ablation (Maze) is recommended in patients undergoing cardiac surgery to improve symptoms attributable to AF (Class IIa, Level A, 2016 ESC/HERA/EACTS/ESO Guidelines), however there is a paucity of data about the impact on survival of sinus Rhythm restoration following mitral surgery. Purpose: The Purpose of this study is to evaluate efficacy and impact on long term survival of concomitant ablation (Maze) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair/replacement. Methods: From 2000 and 2015, 122 consecutive patients with mitral valve disease and Atrial Fibrillation underwent mitral valve repair (81.9%) or replacement. AF type included Persistent / Long Standing Persistent AF in 83 patients (68%). AF ablation (Maze) was carried out using bipolar RF devices, lesion set included: pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus connecting lesions (59.8%), Box lesion (40.2%), among them 29 patients (23.7%) received a full Cox-MAZE IV procedure. Primary study end-point was overall survival at 5- and 10-years while secondary end-point (efficacy) was Sinus rhythm restoration (freedom from AF recurrences according to HRS criteria) at discharge and follow-up. Rhythm outcome was assessed by ambulatory evaluation and 72 hours Holter-EKG monitoring.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".