Impact of sex on long-term outcomes following mitral valve repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have identified inferior outcomes for women undergoing mitral valve (MV) surgery compared to men, although the cause of this discrepancy has not been identified. We look to isolate surgical approach to identify any impact that sex has on outcomes in order to better inform clinical decision making. In this propensity matched, retrospective, single-center study, outcomes were compared between males and females undergoing a MV repair between 2004 and 2018. The primary outcome was defined as mortality at any point in the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, complications arising from the initial procedure, and postoperative cardiac remodeling. A total of 188 males and 188 females were included after propensity matching. At a median follow up time of 7.6 years, there were 25 deaths in the male group (26.8%) and 23 in the female group (28.2%) (p = 0.771). There were no significant differences in MI, stroke, post-operative pacemaker insertion, or rehospitalization following MV repair. Left ventricular (LV) size for males was reduced from an initial 55.6 ± 7.3 mm to 49.9 ± 7.4 mm (p < 0.001), and for females from an initial 51.5 ± 7 mm to 46.9 ± 7.1 mm (p < 0.001). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was reduced with a preoperative LVEF for males of 57.7% ± 8.9% and 53.7% ± 9.6% postoperatively (p = 0.002), and LVEF for females of 57.8% ± 9.1% preoperatively and 54.8% ± 9.2% postoperatively (p < 0.001). Left atrial (LA) volume was reduced from an initial 51 ± 22 ml/m2 to 43.7 ± 25.2 ml/m2 (p < 0.001), and 50.9 ± 19.2 ml/m2 to 44.2 ± 19.8 ml/m2 (p < 0.001), for males and females respectively. LA diameter was reduced for males from an initial 49.7 ± 9.7 mm to 47.3 ± 9.4 mm (p = 0.043), and from 48 ± 8.7 mm to 44.3 ± 9.1 mm for females postoperatively (p = 0.017). Current literature demonstrates inferior outcomes for females when compared to males undergoing MV surgery with patients undergoing a variety of surgical approaches. The results of this study suggest that surgical intervention for a subset of patients, those undergoing repair of the MV, is safe and offers similar outcomes for males and females.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".