Isolated Tricuspid Valve Replacement for Infective Endocarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Existing data regarding isolated tricuspid valve replacement for primary tricuspid valve disease such as infective endocarditis (IE) are limited. The aim of this study was to review our experience of isolated tricuspid valve replacement for IE. Methods: A retrospective review was performed to evaluate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing isolated tricuspid valve replacement for IE at our tertiary referral center between January 2000 and December 2014. Surgical outcomes were reviewed to include survival and postoperative complications. Results: Seven patients underwent isolated tricuspid valve replacement for IE during the study period. Mean age was 41 ± 14 years with six (86%) males. Six patients (86%) were intravenous drug users. Five patients (71%) presented with septic emboli to the lungs. Five patients (71%) had active endocarditis at the time of surgery. The indications for surgery were heart failure in three patients (43%), persistent sepsis in three patients (43%) and both in one patient (14%). Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the most common infective organism, isolated in five patients (71%). There were no in-hospital mortalities or permanent pacemaker implantations. Follow-up was completed in 86% of the cases. The median follow-up period was 13 months (range 2 to 129 months). Three patients (43%) died during the follow-up period, at 7 months, 8 months and 13 months, respectively. All deaths were associated with prosthetic valve IE and recurrent intravenous drug use. Conclusions: This study supplements the paucity of data pertaining to tricuspid valve replacement for IE in the local population. Survival outcomes can be improved with prompt surgical intervention, optimal medical optimization, and a holistic, psychosocial approach targeting intravenous drug abuse. Cardiol Res. 2022;13(2):110-117 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1359
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".