Midterm survival, clinical, and hemodynamic outcomes of a novel mechanical mitral valve prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the midterm survival, clinical, and hemodynamic outcomes of the On-X mechanical mitral valve, based on the 5-year results of the Prospective Randomized On-X Anticoagulation Clinical Trial (PROACT). METHOD: PROACT Mitral was a multicenter study evaluating 401 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) with either Standard or Conform-X On-X mitral valves, comparing low-dose and standard-dose warfarin. Here we report prespecified secondary outcomes of survival, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, and valve hemodynamics as assessed by core lab-adjudicated echocardiography at 1, 3, and 5 years in the pooled population. RESULTS: Actuarial survival was 99.7% at 1 year, 95.1% at 3 years, and 92.4% at 5 years, with no significant difference between the Standard and Conform-X cuffs. Hemodynamic analysis revealed a mean transvalvular pressure gradient (MG) of 4.6 ± 2.0 mm Hg at 1 year, with no interaction between valve size and patient body surface area. MG values were consistent over time. Quality of life improved with 96.6% of patients in NYHA class I or II at the latest available follow-up of 3 or 5 years. There were no significant differences in survival, clinical, or hemodynamic outcomes between valve sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The On-X mechanical mitral valve demonstrated favorable survival, stable hemodynamics, and enhanced quality of life up to 5 years postimplantation. Derived from high-quality, rigorous randomized trial data, these findings can guide decision making in young patients requiring MVR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".