Impact of Concomitant Mitral Valve Surgery With LVAD Placement: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of concomitant mitral valve surgery for significant preexisting mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature examining concurrent mitral valve surgery in patients with CF-LVAD implantation. Identified articles were systematically assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of 2319 studies identified, 8 studies were included. Among 445 patients with moderate to severe or severe MR, 113 (25.4%) patients received concurrent mitral valvular intervention during CF-LVAD implantation. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass time (MR Surgery 154 min vs. no MR Surgery 119 min, P = 0.64) or hospital length of stay (MR Surgery 21 days vs. no MR Surgery 18 days, P = 0.93). On follow-up, there were no significant differences in freedom from greater than moderate MR (MR Surgery 100% vs. no MR Surgery 74%, P = 0.12) or left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (MR Surgery: 60 mm vs. no MR Surgery 65 mm, P = 0.51). Survival was comparable at 6-months (MR Surgery 77% vs. no MR Surgery 81%, P = 0.75), 1-year (MR Surgery 72% vs. no MR Surgery 80%, P = 0.36), and 2-years of follow-up (MR Surgery 65% vs. no MR Surgery 70%, P = 0.56). The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 studies consisting of 445 patients demonstrates that the addition of mitral valve intervention to CF-LVAD implantation appears to be safe with comparable survival to those undergoing CF-LVAD implantation alone. Large prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to elucidate whether concomitant mitral valve intervention during CF-LVAD implantation in patients with severe MR is necessary.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".