MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400485225 · doi:10.1016/j.xjse.2024.100003

Association of tricuspid regurgitation with clinical events and quality of life after surgery for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation

2024· article· en· W4400485225 on OpenAlexafffund
Raymond J. Strobel, Benjamin P. Kramer, Jessica Overbey, J. Hunter Mehaffey, Robert B. Hawkins, James S. Gammie, A. Marc Gillinov, Michael A. Acker, Robert S. Kramer, Peter K. Smith, Irving L. Kron, Pierre Voisine, Wendy C. Taddei‐Peters, Nancy L. Geller, François Dagenais, Michael J. Mack, Ellen Moquete, Mary E. Marks, Alexander Iribarne, Daniel J. Goldstein, Gorav Ailawadi, Patrick T. O’Gara, Alan J. Moskowitz, Annetine C. Gelijns, Emilia Bagiella

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS structural and endovascular. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyRegurgitation (circulation)Internal medicineMitral regurgitationCardiac surgeryTricuspid Valve Insufficiency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The clinical consequences of coexistent tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) remain unclear. We examined the association of baseline TR severity with outcomes after mitral valve (MV) surgery for IMR. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of MV replacement versus repair for severe IMR. Patients were stratified by baseline TR (none/trace/mild vs moderate/severe). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and quality of life (QoL) using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). Cox proportional hazards and logistic models were used in the analysis. Results: Of 251 randomized patients with severe IMR, 246 undergoing MV repair or replacement (123 each) were included in this secondary analysis. Sixty-one patients (25%) had ≥ severe TR, of whom 43% underwent MV repair and 57% underwent MV replacement. The 2-year all-cause mortality was significantly higher for those with moderate/severe TR compared to those with none/trace/mild TR (38% vs 16%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59-5.38). MACCE rates were higher in patients with moderate/severe TR (53%) compared to those with none/trace/mild TR (39%) (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.21-3.03). No significant difference in 1-year QoL, measured as being alive with a 5-point improvement in the MLHFQ, was observed (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.28-1.33). Conclusions: In patients undergoing surgery for severe IMR, preoperative moderate/severe TR was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality and MACCE. Whether concomitant TV surgery would improve postoperative outcomes in patients with severe IMR and different degrees of TR should be evaluated in a randomized trial.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS structural and endovascular.→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→