MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14918: Mitral Valve Replacement With a Melody™ Valve Improves Survival for Young Children Compared to Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement - A Case-Matched Control Study

2020· article· en· W3104267331 on OpenAlexaff
Devin Chetan, Adrienn Mónika Szabó, Steve Fan, Conall T. Morgan, Olivier Villemain, Rajiv Chaturvedi, Lee Benson, Osami Honjo

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral valve replacementInterquartile rangeMitral valveSurgeryStenosisCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Melody™ valve in the mitral position has been described for use in infants. Hypothesis: Melody™ valve (Medtronic) in the mitral position would improve survival compared to mechanical mitral valves for young children. Methods: Charts were retrospectively reviewed for children who had undergone a Melody™ valve insertion (MEL) between 2014 and 2020. MEL were case-matched by age and weight to those with a mechanical mitral valve (MECH). We compared transplant free survival and cumulative incidence of re-intervention. A sub-analysis was performed for children <1 year of age (8 MEL patients and their matches). Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or frequency (percentage). Results: Eleven children underwent Melody™ mitral valve replacement (MVR) over the study period. Age was 157 (104-402) days and weight 5.0 (4.2-7.4) kg. Indications for MVR were insufficiency in 6 (55%), stenosis in 3 (27%), and mixed disease in 2 (18%). MEL underwent a total of 13 repairs and 4 replacements (2 mechanical, 2 bioprosthetic) prior to Melody™ valve replacement. Final valve dilation size was 18 (15.5-18.5)mm. Two (18%) children salvaged from ECMO before MEL subsequently died. Three (33%) of the 9 survivors have required subsequent MVR at 9, 17, and 23 months; 1 for severe insufficiency, and 2 for severe mixed disease. The MECH cohort was not different in age, weight, valve size, bypass or cross-clamp times, indications for replacement, or number of prior repairs or replacements (p>0.10). At 1 and 3 years, transplant free survival (MEL: 80%, 80%; MECH: 82%, 64%; p=0.180) and re-intervention (MEL: 11%, 39%; MECH: 0%, 20% p=0.32) were equivalent between groups. For children <1 year of age, survival was higher in MEL (Figure; p=0.046) but rate of re-intervention remained equivalent (MEL: 17%, 34%; MECH: 0%, 29%; p=0.56). Conclusions: Melody™ MVR represents a better surgical strategy for infants less than 1 year of age requiring mitral valve replacement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→