Redo percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (redo pmv) in patients with recurrent mitral valve stenosis: Immediate and early outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Symptomatic recurrent mitral valve stenosis develops in some patients after Percutaneous Mitral Valvuloplasty (PMV). This study assessed the immediate and early outcomes of redo PMV in patients with recurrent mitral valve stenosis after prior PMV. Methods: Fifty-four patients (40 women and 14 men, mean age of 38±8.2 years) underwent a redo (second) PMV for symptomatic restenosis of mitral valve [with Mitral Valve Area (MVA) < 1.5 cm2]. Redo PMV was performed at 5.8±1.2 years after the initial PMV. Results: In this study, 48 hours after the procedure, there was a substantial increase in MVA by 2-dimensional Echocardiography (GE, Vivid 7) from 1.0±0.2 to 2.2±0.4 cm2 (p<0.001) and a decrease in mean left atrial pressure from 27 ± 5 to 15 ± 4 mmHg (p<0.001) and in mean transmitral valve gradient from 15±4 to 2±1 mmHg (p <0 .001). Mean pulmonary artery pressure did not change significantly with redo procedure. Good immediate result was achieved in 53 patients (98.15%). Conclusion: Redo PMV can be performed successfully in patients with recurrent mitral valve stenosis following previous percutaneous valvuloplasty. © Journal of Iranian Medical Council 2019.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".