MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic utility of global longitudinal strain (GLS) in patients with severe primary mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W4386652646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruth Divine Agustin, Valerie R. Ramiro, D L Villanueva, Marc Denver A. Tiongson, John Donnie Ramos, Rosemarie Ramirez-Ragasa, J D Magno, Felix Eduardo R. Punzalan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral regurgitationHazard ratioCardiologyMitral valve repairInternal medicineMitral valveEjection fractionCochrane LibraryOdds ratioSurgeryAsymptomaticMeta-analysisHeart failureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mitral valve (MV) surgery is recommended for the treatment of chronic severe mitral regurgitation (MR). However, the optimal timing of surgery in patients with asymptomatic severe primary MR remains elusive. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) may provide additional prognostic value in predicting postoperative outcomes in patients with chronic severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR) undergoing MV surgery. Purpose We aimed to determine the prognostic value of GLS in predicting postoperative mortality and LV dysfunction among patients with chronic severe primary MR. Methods Systematic search of Pubmed, Cochrane library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Herdin.ph from inception to July 2019, using the terms “mitral insufficiency”, “mitral regurgitation”, “mitral valve surgery”, and “global longitudinal strain” was done without language restriction. We included and extracted data from cohort studies of patients with chronic severe primary MR who underwent MV surgery and which GLS, mortality and ejection fraction. We used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of included studies. Review Manager 5.3 was used to perform analysis. Forest plots with summary hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), I2 test for heterogeneity, and funnel plots were reported. Results Our search yielded 12 cohort studies with 2,843 patients; 7 prospective and 5 retrospective studies were included in the qualitative synthesis with 11 good quality studies. Cut-off GLS values ranged from −21.7% to −18.1%. In terms of postoperative all-cause mortality, the summary HR for worse versus better preoperative GLS is 1.22 (95% CI 1.04–1.44, p value <0.ehab724.16031, I2 95%). In terms of postoperative LV dysfunction, the summary OR is 1.74 (95% CI 1.14–2.66, p value 0.01, I2 94%) with significant heterogeneity. Conclusion Left ventricular GLS has prognostic value in terms of predicting postoperative mortality and LV dysfunction. However, significant heterogeneity exists between studies. Larger studies with well-defined inclusion criteria need to be performed and standardized GLS cut-offs need to be determined. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. GLS in Predicting All-Cause MortalityGLS in Predicting Post-op Dysfunction

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.028
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.371
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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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