Sex-Related Differences in Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inequalities in postoperative outcomes between males and females are well described with females often experiencing inferior outcomes after heart valve surgery. The recent literature has demonstrated equivalent or improved outcomes for females after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) and replacement (TMVR) is a relatively newer field with significantly less literature comparing sex differences. This systematic review and meta-analysis looks to provide a comprehensive summary of the published literature comparing outcomes between males and females undergoing transcatheter MV interventions. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus were systematically searched for all studies comparing outcomes between males and females undergoing TMVr and TMVR. A total of 2,178 English manuscript titles and abstracts were reviewed. Articles were excluded if data were not provided regarding sex differences, transcatheter MV intervention, full-length text was not accessible, or if insufficient data was provided. A total of 2,170 articles were excluded, and 8 articles were included in this study. RESULTS: Pooled estimates of outcomes demonstrated rates of acute kidney injury (OR 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.44; p < 0.0001]) favored females, while rates of major bleeding favored males (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.76-0.96; p = 0.01]). Rates of mortality, postoperative MI, and stroke did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: A trend has emerged in heart valve interventions with males tending to have improved outcomes after surgical intervention and females experiencing equivalent or improved outcomes after transcatheter interventions. This meta-analysis identified increased rates of acute kidney injury for males, increased rates of major bleeding for females, and otherwise comparable morbidity and mortality in males and females undergoing TMVr.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".