MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023768064 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2020.04.006

Commentary: Achilles' heel

2020· editorial· en· W3023768064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher C. H. Cook, Harold G. Roberts, Lawrence M. Wei, Vinay Badhwar

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitral valve replacementMedicineComplicationCardiologyMitral valveSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central MessageLeft ventricular rupture following prosthetic mitral valve replacement might be avoided by valve-sparing techniques and vigilance at the time of debridement to maintain or support annular integrity.See Article page 48. Left ventricular rupture following prosthetic mitral valve replacement might be avoided by valve-sparing techniques and vigilance at the time of debridement to maintain or support annular integrity. See Article page 48. David1David T. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacement.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2020; 3: 48-49Scopus (2) Google Scholar shares a case series and an erudite summary of the daunting complication of left ventricular (LV) rupture during mitral valve replacement (MVR). David1David T. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacement.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2020; 3: 48-49Scopus (2) Google Scholar illustrates the operative recognition and immediate management of 6 patients, all of whom survived. This is particularly laudable because the operative mortality of this complication has been reported to range from 50% to 90%.2Otaki M. Kitamura N. Left ventricular rupture following mitral valve replacement.Chest. 1993; 104: 1431-1435Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar,3Zhang H.J. Ma W.G. Xu J.P. Hu S.S. Zhu X.D. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacement: a report of 13 cases.Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2006; 14: 26-29Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar Although performing prosthetic MVR is not usual, few surgeons have had the misfortune of having to deal with LV rupture. Bright red blood emanating from the posterior pericardium upon separation from cardiopulmonary bypass following MVR is universally accompanied by a sinking feeling in the operator. Should an ill-prepared surgeon attempt lifting the heart to locate the bleeding source in this setting, the maneuver may prove fatal. As outlined by David,1David T. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacement.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2020; 3: 48-49Scopus (2) Google Scholar the key steps in managing this complication are recognizing preoperative risk factors such as mitral annular calcification (Figures 1 and 2), operative prevention, and rapid open operative correction.Figure 2When operative exposure reveals loss of annular definition and deep atrial and ventricular involvement, surgeons should consider the patient at high risk for postoperative left ventricular rupture.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload (PPT) Predispositions to this complication include female patients, a small LV cavity, advanced age, severe mitral annular calcification, and implantation of higher-profile bioprosthetic valves. Vigilance and patch correction at the time of annular debridement may avoid type 1 LV disruption, whereas avoiding deep debridement involving the papillary muscles can mitigate type 2 LV disruption. Posterior leaflet and total leaflet sparing MVR operations have nearly eliminated this complication.4Spencer F.C. Galloway A.C. Colvin S.B. A clinical evaluation of the hypothesis that rupture of the left ventricle following mitral valve replacement can be prevented by preservation of the chordae of the mural leaflet.Ann Surg. 1985; 202: 673-678Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar,5Guo Y. He S. Wang T. Chen Z. Shu Y. Comparison of modified total leaflet preservation, posterior leaflet preservation, and no leaflet preservation techniques in mitral valve replacement—a retrospective study.J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019; 14: 102Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar In the presence of predisposing factors and operative concern of postdebridement annular integrity, concomitant oversized annular patching with autologous pericardium or similar substitute may prevent LV rupture following MVR.6Kim S.W. Jeong D.S. Sung K. Kim W.S. Lee Y.T. Park P.W. Surgical outcomes of mitral valve replacement with concomitant mitral annular reconstruction.J Card Surg. 2018; 33: 69-75Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar Should clinical presumption of LV injury occur with postbypass ejection, rapid decision making as outlined by David1David T. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacement.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2020; 3: 48-49Scopus (2) Google Scholar is required and removal of the prosthesis is recommended along with placement of a large, oversized patch without tension before re-replacement. Attempts at epicardial solutions with sealants have not proven to be uniformly effective. These few maneuvers are the essential steps to the prevention and management of this otherwise potentially lethal complication of MVR. Greek mythological reference to Achilles' heel symbolizes that despite overall strength, a focal vulnerability may lead to downfall. Surgeons are well versed in the reproducible techniques of prosthetic MVR. Valve-sparing methods and adaptive strategies to address mitral annular calcification are the established necessary standards to avoid this potential vulnerability and circumvent this pitfall. Vigilance can often save patients from this often fatal problem. Left ventricular rupture after mitral valve replacementJTCVS OpenVol. 3PreviewVentricular rupture after mitral valve replacement (MVR) is a rare and often a fatal complication of this operation. This problem was first presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American College Chest Physicians in Toronto, on October 22, 1973, by Dr Robert L. Treasure and colleagues.1 Those investigators collected 7 cases from 3 hospitals and, based on the site of the ventricular tear, they classified the ventricular ruptures in type 1 (atrioventricular groove) and type 2 (midventricular wall). Full-Text PDF Open Access

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS OpenSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207