MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407365487 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1804120

Survival Trends of Patients After Mitral Valve Repair for Structural Mitral Regurgitation Compared to the General Population

2025· article· en· W4407365487 on OpenAlexaff
Túlio Caldonazo, H. Kirov, B. A. Sakhtianchi, P. Tasoudis, Johannes Fischer, Alexander Runkel, Murat Mukharyamov, Kevin R. An, T. Doenst

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitral regurgitationMitral valve repairCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineMitral valveFunctional mitral regurgitationPopulationHeart failureEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All articles of this category (opens in new window) Background: Surgical mitral valve repair (MVr) for structural mitral regurgitation (MR) restores valve function. Individual studies suggest that MVr may normalize life expectancy. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of all studies assessing the impact of MVr for structural MR on survival. Methods: Three databases were assessed searching for studies with survival comparisons to the regional age-matched general population. The primary and single endpoint was long-term mortality. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves and was used to calculate overall survival. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess between-group differences. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of each individual study was calculated. Landmark analysis was performed to check the robustness of the estimated effect. Results: Four studies met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis. The studies’ follow-up ranged from 10 to 26 years. The pooled Kaplan-Meier curves of reconstructed IPD show that for the entire follow-up, patients who underwent MVr had higher risk of death compared with the general age-matched population (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53–0.72, p < 0.01). Due to violation of the HR proportions, a landmark analysis was performed splitting the events after 6 years. There was no survival difference between the groups until 6 years after surgery (HR: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.68–1.03, p = 0.09). From 6 to 26 years of follow-up, curves diverged and the MVr group demonstrated significantly higher risk of death compared with the general age-matched population (HR: 0.45, 95% CI, 0.36–0.56, p < 0.01). The individual studies showed that the decrease in survival after 6 years was associated with an increase in return of MR and need of reoperation. Conclusion: MVr for structural MR has the potential to restore life expectancy compared with the general population. However, this effect is limited to the first 6 years after surgery. Risk of death thereafter correlates with the return of severe regurgitation and/or the need for reoperation. Publication History Article published online: 11 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeonSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207