Cost Analysis for Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: A Single-Centre Canadian Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stakeholders within a publicly funded healthcare system have a duty to consider costs and economics, to utilize finite resources in the most effective manner. We aimed to quantify the postoperative costs associated with mitral valve repair (MVR) at the Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Canada. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent MVR from January 2020 to November 2023 was performed. For patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS), a postoperative rapid recovery (RR) protocol was introduced. Postoperative costs were analyzed for 3 comparator groups: MIMVS with RR (MIMVS-RR), MIMVS without RR, , and median sternotomy. Results: Care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) is 2.83 times more expensive than care on the cardiac surgery ward. Length of stay (LOS) in the CVICU was identified to be the primary driver of postoperative costs. The CVICU LOS and total LOS for sternotomy patients was longer than those of MIMVS patients. This difference translated to increased postoperative costs for sternotomy compared to MIMVS on a per-patient basis. The postoperative costs associated with sternotomy are 1.42 times higher than those for MIMVS-RR. When modelled with 200 patients, MIMVS-RR represents a postoperative cost-savings of $3.657 million CAD, compared to sternotomy. Conclusions: Following MVR, a minimally invasive approach demonstrates cost-savings, compared to a sternotomy. Reduced CVICU LOS was the primary driver of cost-savings for MIMVS. Further analysis and investigations are required to fully quantify the true economic benefits of MIMVS-RR at our centre.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".