Mitral valve surgery in acute infective endocarditis: long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Timing and surgical strategies in acute infective endocarditis are still questionable. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVR) compared with mitral valve replacement [mitral valve prosthesis (MVP)] for acute infective endocarditis. METHODS: From 2004 to 2019, 109 consecutive patients with acute mitral valve infective endocarditis were retrospectively investigated. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical strategy: MVR 53/109 (48.6%) versus MVP 56/109 (51.4%). Primary end points were in-hospital mortality and overall survival at 10 years. Secondary end point was the freedom from infective endocarditis relapse. RESULTS: Our institutional surgical approach for infective endocarditis allowed us to achieve MVR in 48.6% of patients. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups [MVR: 1/53 (1.9%) versus MVP: 2/56 (3.6%), P = 1.000]. Overall 10-year survival was 80.0 ± 14.1 and 77.2 ± 13.5% for MVR and MVP, respectively ( P = 0.648). MVR showed a lower incidence of infective endocarditis relapse compared with MVP (MVR: 93.6 ± 7.1 versus MVP: 80.9 ± 10.8%, P = 0.041). At Cox regression, infective endocarditis relapse was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio 4.03; 95% confidence interval 1.41-11.52; P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The tendency to postpone surgery in stable patients with mitral infective endocarditis allowed achievement of MVR in almost 50% of patients. Although repair remains the approach of choice in our institution, no differences between MVR and MVP were reported in terms of early/late survival. However, MVP had a higher incidence of infective endocarditis relapse that represents an independent risk of mortality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".