MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214238244 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2115961

Concomitant Tricuspid Repair in Patients with Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation

2021· article· en· W3214238244 on OpenAlexaff
James S. Gammie, Michael Chu, Volkmar Falk, Jessica Overbey, Alan J. Moskowitz, Marc Gillinov, Michael J. Mack, Pierre Voisine, Markus Krane, Babatunde A. Yerokun, Michael E. Bowdish, Lenard Conradi, Steven F. Bolling, Marissa A. Miller, Wendy C. Taddei‐Peters, Neal Jeffries, Michael K. Parides, Richard D. Weisel, Mariell Jessup, Eric A. Rose, John C. Mullen, Samantha Raymond, Ellen Moquete, Karen O’Sullivan, Mary E. Marks, Alexander Iribarne, Friedhelm Beyersdorf, Michael A. Borger, Arnar Geirsson, Emilia Bagiella, Judy Hung, Annetine C. Gelijns, Patrick T. O’Gara, Gorav Ailawadi

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoLondon Health Sciences CentreInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecWestern University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDeutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung
KeywordsRegurgitation (circulation)MedicineMitral regurgitationConcomitantCardiologyInternal medicineTricuspid valveMitral valveMitral valve repairTricuspid Valve InsufficiencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid regurgitation is common in patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation. However, the evidence base is insufficient to inform a decision about whether to perform tricuspid-valve repair during mitral-valve surgery in patients who have moderate tricuspid regurgitation or less-than-moderate regurgitation with annular dilatation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 401 patients who were undergoing mitral-valve surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation to receive a procedure with or without tricuspid annuloplasty (TA). The primary 2-year end point was a composite of reoperation for tricuspid regurgitation, progression of tricuspid regurgitation by two grades from baseline or the presence of severe tricuspid regurgitation, or death. RESULTS: Patients who underwent mitral-valve surgery plus TA had fewer primary-end-point events than those who underwent mitral-valve surgery alone (3.9% vs. 10.2%) (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.86; P = 0.02). Two-year mortality was 3.2% in the surgery-plus-TA group and 4.5% in the surgery-alone group (relative risk, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.88). The 2-year prevalence of progression of tricuspid regurgitation was lower in the surgery-plus-TA group than in the surgery-alone group (0.6% vs. 6.1%; relative risk, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.69). The frequencies of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, functional status, and quality of life were similar in the two groups at 2 years, although the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in the surgery-plus-TA group than in the surgery-alone group (14.1% vs. 2.5%; rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27 to 14.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, those who also received TA had a lower incidence of a primary-end-point event than those who underwent mitral-valve surgery alone at 2 years, a reduction that was driven by less frequent progression to severe tricuspid regurgitation. Tricuspid repair resulted in more frequent permanent pacemaker implantation. Whether reduced progression of tricuspid regurgitation results in long-term clinical benefit can be determined only with longer follow-up. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675244.).

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations258
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207