Edge-to-edge with partial band mitral valve repair compared to replacement and undersized restrictive annuloplasty for ischemic mitral regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Evidence supports replacement over repair for ischemic mitral regurgitation due to improved durability; however, the latter often involves an undersized ring annuloplasty that does not include edge-to-edge approximation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of replacement, edge-to-edge leaflet approximation with mild-undersized annuloplasty and undersized ring annuloplasty for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing mitral surgery for moderate-severe or greater ischemic mitral regurgitation, between 2004 and 2020, with mild-undersized annuloplasty, mitral valve replacement, or undersized restrictive annuloplasty (undersized ring annuloplasty). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included first recurrence of mitral regurgitation, heart failure hospitalization, and composite of valve-related events (bleeding, thromboembolism, endocarditis, and mitral valve reoperation). Results: = .002). Conclusions: Surgical edge-to-edge approximation in addition to a mild-undersizing annuloplasty offers similar durability compared with replacement, with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure, and may confer a survival advantage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".