Endoscopic Mitral Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation: Effect of Disease Complexity on Short- and Mid-term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We set out to compare in a prospective cohort study the mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of mini-mitral repair for simple (posterior prolapse) vs complex regurgitation (anterior/bileaflet prolapse). Methods A total of 245 consecutive patients underwent mini-mitral repair for severe degenerative mitral regurgitation through a right, endoscopic approach (n = 145 simple, n = 100 complex). The most common repair technique was annuloplasty + artificial chordae (84%, n = 121 for simple vs 88%, n = 88 for complex, P = 0.3). Patients were prospectively followed for a maximal duration of 9 years. Patients' characteristics were well balanced between groups. Results The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was similar (0%, n = 0 simple vs 1%, n = 1 complex, P = 0.2). Both groups had similar rates of early postoperative complications: myocardial infarction (1.4%, n = 2 vs 0%, n = 0, P = 0.2), neurologic complications (1.4%, n = 2 vs 0%, n = 0, P = 0.2), reoperation for bleeding (0.7%, n = 1 vs 3%, n = 3, P = 0.2), intensive care unit length of stay (1 interquartile range, 1-1 days vs 1 interquartile range, 1-1 days, P = 0.7). Late survival (88% for simple vs 92% for complex, P = 0.4) was similar between groups. Cumulative incidence of late reoperation at 6 years is 0% for both groups (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1, P = 1). There was no difference in recurrent mitral regurgitation greater than 2+ at each year after surgery up to 6 years postoperatively. Conclusion Mitral repair using an endoscopic, minimally invasive approach yields excellent mid-term outcomes regardless of disease complexity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".