MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3109000760 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1980

A randomized surgical trial of mitral valve repair with leaflet resection versus leaflet preservation on functional mitral stenosis – primary results of the CAMRA CardioLink-2 trial

2020· article· en· W3109000760 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent Chan, C. David Mazer, Thierry Mesana, Benoit E. de Varennes, Alexander J. Gregory, Denis Bouchard, Fei Zuo, Faeez Mohamad Ali, Wendy Tsang, David A. Latter, Peter Jüni, Hwee Teoh, Adrian Quan, Howard Leong‐Poi, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalMontreal Heart InstituteLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineStenosisMitral valve repairSurgeryLeaflet (botany)Mitral valveMitral regurgitationRandomized controlled trialCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The gold standard treatment for mitral valve regurgitation due to prolapse involves surgery with annuloplasty and either leaflet resection or leaflet preservation, with placement of artificial neochordae. It has been suggested that leaflet resection may be prone to functional mitral stenosis, whereby a patient may have a higher mitral gradient at peak exercise compared to a leaflet preservation strategy. Although both techniques are widely used, there has been no prospective randomized study conducted to compare these two techniques, particularly in regard to functional mitral stenosis. Methods A total of 104 patients with posterior leaflet prolapse were randomized to undergo mitral repair with either leaflet resection (N=54) or leaflet preservation (N=50) at 7 specialized Canadian cardiac centers. Patient age, proportion of female patients, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 63.9±10.4 years, 19%, and 1.4% for those who underwent leaflet resection, and 66.3±10.8 years, 16%, and 1.9% for those who underwent leaflet preservation, respectively. The primary endpoint was the mean trans-mitral repair gradient at peak exercise 12-months after repair. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. At 12-months, the mean trans-mitral repair gradient at peak exercise in patients who underwent leaflet resection and preservation was 9.1±5.2 and 8.3±3.3 mmHg (P=0.4), respectively. The two groups had similar mean mitral valve gradient at rest (3.2±1.9 mmHg following resection and 3.1±1.1 mmHg following leaflet preservation, P=0.7). There was no between-group difference for the 6-minute walk distance (451±147 m and 481±95 m for the resection and preservation groups, respectively, P=0.3). Conclusion We report the first prospective surgical randomized trial to evaluate commonly used mitral valve repair strategies for posterior leaflet prolapse. Leaflet resection and leaflet preservation both yield acceptable results with no difference in postoperative valve gradient and functional status 12-months after surgical mitral valve repair. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designRandomized 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→