MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15790: Neurologic Impact of Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion in Mitral Valve Surgery, a Retrospective Study

2015· article· en· W4395039043 on OpenAlexaff
Emmeline Ruka, Émile Voisine, François Dagenais, Vincent Chauvette, Pierre Voisine

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAppendageAtrial AppendageCardiologyMitral valveInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationRetrospective cohort studySurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Up to 40% of patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery develop atrial fibrillation (AF). AF is a significant risk factor for stroke and 90% of clots responsible for AF-related neurological events form in the left atrial appendage (LAA). LAA exclusion (LAAe) could potentially reduce post-operative neurological complications in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery. Methodology: Single center retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data including all patients undergoing mitral valve surgery between January 2003 and April 2014. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis with stepwise approach were performed. Results: Results were obtained for 2728 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 406 (14.9%) had a LAAe. This group of patients suffered more frequently from pre-operative AF (86.7% vs 35.1%, p<0.0001) and had more concomitant Maze procedures (78.3% vs 12.3%, p<0.0001) than the group of patients who did not have LAAe (n-LAAe). By univariate analysis, in-hospital mortality was comparable in the LAAe vs n-LAAe groups (4.7% vs 6.5%, p=0.18). The risks of post-operative stroke (3.0% vs 3.5%, p=0.77) and transient ischemic attack (0.5% vs 0.4%, p=0.70) were also comparable. No difference in reoperation for bleeding between the two groups was observed (5.9% vs 6.8%, p=0.59). By univariate analysis, the presence of AF (pre- or post-operative) did not have a significant impact on mortality (p=0.48 and p=0.89, respectively). There was a significant difference in long-term survival between the LAAe group and the n-LAAe group (p=0.0007, median follow-up 2.4 years). By multivariate analysis, LAAe was identified as an independent protective factor from long-term mortality [OR 0.47; CI95% (0.25-0.89)]. The performance of an isolated Maze procedure [OR 0.66; CI95% (0.36-1.21)] did not have a significant impact on mortality. Conclusion: LAAe during mitral valve surgery is an independent protective factor from long-term mortality, without increasing peri-operative risks of bleeding or new onset AF. However, LAAe does not protect from neurologic events in the peri-operative period. Unlike LAAe, an isolated Maze procedure did not have an impact on long-term survival.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→