P922Presentation and outcomes of mitral valve surgery in France in the recent era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Contemporary and unbiased information regarding the surgical management of patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) at the Nationwide level are scarce. The PMSI, a mandatory administrative database, offers the unique opportunity to assess the presentation and outcomes of all consecutive mitral valve (MV) surgeries performed in France in the contemporary era. Methods We collected all (isolated or combined) MV surgeries performed for MR in France both in public and private hospitals between 2014 and 2016. Based on an algorithm we developed, MR etiology was classified as degenerative (DMR), secondary (SMR) or OTHER (rheumatic, congenital, infective endocarditis or unknown). Results Between January 2014 and December 2016, 18,167 mitral valve surgeries were performed in France (55% repair and 45% replacement; 52% isolated MV surgery). Mean age was 66±12 years and 59% were male. Etiology was DMR in 42%, SMR in 16% and OTHER in 42%. Among DMR, repair rate was 68% overall and 72% in the subset who underwent an isolated MV surgery (70% of all DMR). Repair rates decreased with age, Charlson index and sex (female) (all P<0.0001). Among SMR, a repair was performed in 39% and a combined surgery in 51%. In-hospital mortality and rate of death / readmission for CHF at one year were 3.4% and 13% respectively for DMR (2.4% and 5.5% respectively for isolated DMR) and 7.8% and 17.8% respectively for SMR (5.5% and 12.4% respectively for isolated SMR). Center volume was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (p=0.002) but not with higher DMR repair rate (P=0.85). Conclusion In this large administrative contemporary nationwide database, 1) DMR surgery was twice as frequent as SMR and more frequently performed isolated; 2) Repair rates in DMR were suboptimal overall but more critically in the elderly and women subsets. 3) Operative mortality and one-year rate of death and readmission were approximately twice as high in SMR than in DMR and overall considerable even for isolated DMR surgery; and 4) In DMR, center volume had no impact on repair rate but an independent impact on outcome. These results underline the need to develop strategies to improve management and outcomes of patients with both degenerative and secondary MR.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".