MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation: a 10-year single center experience

2021· article· en· W3209676103 on OpenAlexaff
Mariama Akodad, Gnalini Sathananthan, A. Chatfield, Cvetan Trpkov, Youcef Lounes, Anthony Chuang, David Wood, Robert Boone, Robert Moss, Anson Cheung, J Ye, Phillip Blanke, Jonathon Leipsic, Janarthanan Sathananthan, John G. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral regurgitationMitral valve replacementMitral valveCardiologyStenosisSurgerySingle CenterProsthesisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMVIV) appears a reasonable alternative to surgical redo mitral valve replacement in patients with degenerated mitral prosthesis and high surgical risk with favorable early and mid-terms outcomes. Long-term outcomes are limited by high mortality in a comorbid population. Purpose We aimed to evaluate early prosthesis hemodynamic performance and late clinical outcomes following TMVIV. Methods All patients who underwent TMVIV for degenerated surgical mitral bioprostheses from 2011 to 2020 in our center were included. Prospectively collected demographic, clinical, procedural, and imaging variables were analyzed. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were defined according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions and assessed at 30-day and at the latest follow-up available. Results A total of 67 patients were included; mean age 76.9±9.6 years, mean STS score 11.0±6.2%, 53.7% male (n=36). Mechanisms of bioprosthetic failure were mitral stenosis (n=32, 47.8%), mitral regurgitation (n=24, 35.8%), and mixed (n=11, 16.4%). Mean time from mitral valve surgery to TMVIV was 10.2±4.3 years. Access was mostly transapical (n=45; 67.2%), followed by transseptal (n=22; 32.8%). Following the first transseptal procedure in 2016; transseptal access accounted for the majority of procedures (22 of 37 cases, 59.4%). Technical success was achieved in 65 patients (97.0%). Mean hospitalization was 9.2±10.0 days; shorter with the transseptal as opposed to the transapical approach (6.3±8.1 days versus 11.0±10.5 days, p=0.001). At 30-day echographic follow-up, mean mitral valve gradient was 7.3±2.7 and 1 patient (1.9%) had mitral regurgitation >mild. At 30-day follow-up, 3 patients had died (4.5%); due to left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (1), heart failure (1), and stroke (1). New pacemakers were required in 2 patients (3.0%) and pacemaker lead dislodgement occurred in 1 patient (1.5%), 4 patients (6.2%) were hospitalized for heart failure. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years [1.7–5.1], 29 patients had died (43.3%), valve thrombosis was found in 6 (8.9%) and endocarditis in 4 patients (6.2%). Mitral valve reintervention was performed in 4 patients (6.2%); redo TMVIV due to valve migration in 1 (1.9%), surgical valve replacement in 1 (1.9%), and delayed redilation with a non-compliant balloon due to underexpansion in 2 patients (3.8%). Conclusion TMVIV is associated with acceptable 30-day mitral valve hemodynamics. Long-term mortality remains high in this high-surgical risk comorbid group. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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