Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Versus Annuloplasty in Functional Mitral Valve Regurgitation: A Comparison of Cardiovascular Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The EVEREST trials established the MitraClip as a viable alternative to surgery in treating functional mitral valve regurgitation (FMVR). The MitraClip G4 offers a less invasive way of managing severe FMVR. We sought to compare in-patient mortality and cardiovascular complications in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who developed severe FMVR requiring treatment with MitraClip G4 versus annuloplasty. Comparisons of outcomes to previous iterations of the MitraClip were included in the analysis. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we included adult patients with FMVR and HFrEF between 2016 and 2020 who underwent percutaneous repair or annuloplasty. MitraClip G4 use was assumed for MitraClip performed in the third quarter of 2019 and afterward. To avoid overlap between the G4 and previous iterations, MitraClip data from 2019 were excluded. Mortality, stroke, and other complications were assessed. Survey-weighted logistic regression was used to adjust for selection bias in the treatment received based on age and comorbidities. The weighted analysis included 19,500 patients receiving either MitraClip G4 or annuloplasty. Results: The MitraClip group was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.38, confidence interval (CI): 0.18 - 0.77), ischemic stroke (OR: 0.29, CI: 0.13 - 0.61), and myocardial infarction (OR: 0.15, CI: 0.08 - 0.28). The MitraClip G4 cohort did not outperform earlier clip versions in reducing complications. Conclusions: The MitraClip G4 was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular complications than annuloplasty but had outcomes similar to earlier clip versions. Additional studies comparing percutaneous therapies and surgical interventions are necessary to determine optimal treatment strategies for patients with FMVR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".