Long-term outcome of isolated mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative mitral regurgitation in propensity-matched patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study was performed to investigate the long-term outcomes in patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR) without concomitant surgeries. Methods The study cohort comprised 1493 patients with degenerative MR who were treated with isolated mitral valve surgery between January 2000 and December 2017 in a large multicenter (5 hospitals) registry of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, including 991 with repair and 502 with replacement. A propensity-matched comparison and risk-adjusted model were used to analyze the outcomes. Results After propensity matching (415 matched pairs), the 30-day mortalities were 2.4% and 3.6% in the MVr and MVR groups respectively (odds ratio [OR], 1.500; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.674-3.339; P = .32). The MVR group had significantly greater rates of prolonged inotrope usage >24 hours ( P = .024), prolonged ventilation ( P = .039), and blood transfusion ( P = .023). The respective 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 95.7%, 88.8%, 71.4%, and 53.3% in the MVr group, and 93.0%, 81.6%, 61.3%, and 46.0% in the MVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.355; 95% CI, 1.105-1.661; P = .004). A multivariable analysis revealed that MVR was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR, 2.270; 95% CI, 1.089-4.732; P = .029) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.417; 95% CI, 1.161-1.729; P < .001). The HR of MVR over MVr remained consistently greater than 1.0 across all ages. Conclusions MVr is associated with lower postoperative morbidity and better long-term survival compared with MVR in patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery for degenerative MR. The benefit of MVr appears age-independent.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".