MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14956: Improved Operative Efficiency for Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery at a Low-volume Center

2020· article· en· W3106241240 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Fowler, J.B. MacLeod, christie aguiar, A.M. Yip, Zlatko Pozeg, Craig Brown, Jean‐François Légaré, Ansar Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary bypassSurgeryMitral valveMitral valve replacementCardiac surgeryMitral valve repairSingle CenterCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: When implementing a minimally invasive cardiac surgery program, increased surgical times may serve as a deterrent. Results demonstrating parity in operative times between minimally invasive (MIMVR) and conventional mitral valve replacement/repair (CMVR) have been limited to high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to examine operative efficiency for MIMVR in a low-volume center. Methods: All patients having undergone non-emergent, isolated MIMVR or CMVR at the New Brunswick Heart Centre from 2011-2017 were considered. Detailed peri-operative data, including cross clamp (XC), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), skin-to-skin (SS) and total operative (TO) times, were collected. Patients were assigned to one of 3 eras: 2011-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017. Unadjusted comparisons were made between MIMVR and CMVR over the entire study period and within each era. Results: A total of 168 patients were included (MIMVR: 64; CMVR: 104). There was an increase in the number of MIMVR cases over time (2011-2013: 19; 2014-2015: 17; 2016-2017: 28). Patients undergoing MIMVR were less likely to be ≥70years (29.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.04) and to have had NYHA-IV symptoms (17.2% vs. 41.3%, p=0.002), previous cardiac surgery (4.7% vs. 23.1%, p=0.003) or urgent presentation (12.5% vs. 35.6%, p=0.002). Intra-operatively, MIMVR patients were more likely to have undergone a mitral valve repair (65.1% vs. 29.1%, p<0.0001). No differences were noted in rates of in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs. 5.1%, p=0.29). Median operative times were uniformly longer among MIMVR patients between 2011-2013. However, in 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, these times improved to the point where no significant differences in operative efficiency were noted (Figure). Conclusions: Improved operative efficiency may be safely achieved for MIMVR in a low-volume center. The results of this study should encourage low-volume centers to adopt a minimally invasive approach to isolated mitral valve surgery.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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 topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques→French-language works237,207→