Abstract 16962: Two-year Outcomes Following Mitral Valve Repair or Replacement for Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network recently reported no difference in left ventricular end systolic volume index (LVESVI) at one year post-surgery between patients randomized to mitral repair (n=126) or replacement (n=125) for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR). However, repair patients experienced significantly more recurrent MR than replacement patients. We report the 2-year follow-up of trial participants. Methods: We followed 251 patients randomized to repair or replacement for 2 years. LVESVI was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test in which deaths were assigned the lowest rank. Results: Among surviving patients, mean 2-year LVESVI was 52.6 ±28mL/m2 in the repair and 60.7±39mL/m2 in the replacement arm (mean decrease from baseline 9.0mL/m2 and 6.5mL/m2, respectively). Two-year mortality was 19.1% for repair and 23.2% for replacement (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46-1.35; p=0.39). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (Z=-1.32, p=0.19). The rate of moderate or severe MR recurrence at 24 months was higher in the repair than replacement arm (36.3% vs.1.3%; p< .0001). In the repair arm, the 2-year LVESVI was 62.5 ± 25 in patients with recurrent MR vs. 47.0 ± 29 in those without MR (p=0.0042). Four repair patients and 1 replacement patient underwent MV reoperation. There was no significant difference in the composite of MACCE, functional status or quality of life at 2 years. Rates (pt-yr) of serious adverse events (1.5 vs.1.3, p=0.18) and overall readmissions (0.8 vs. 0.7, p=0.14) were not different between arms, but repair patients experienced a higher rate of serious heart failure (0.24 vs. 0.15, p=0.049) and more CV readmissions (0.48 vs. 0.33, p=0.02) than replacement patients. Conclusions: We observed no difference in LV reverse remodeling or survival between repair and replacement at two years. Replacement provided more durable correction of MR, as well as fewer HF events and CV readmissions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".