Sex-Related Differences in Outcomes According to Surgical Treatment Approach in Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sex differences in degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) are poorly described, especially according to surgical treatment approach (ie, mitral valve repair [MVr] vs replacement [MVR]). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess sex differences in presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients surgically treated for DMR and identify sex-specific predictors of mortality. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated by MVr or MVR between 2002 and 2019 were included (n = 1,804), and all data were prospectively collected. To account for confounders between men and women, the inverse probability weighting method was used in total population and within each treatment approach singly. The study endpoints were short-term postoperative (ie, ≤30 days) outcomes and long-term mortality. RESULTS: Preoperatively, women (n = 661; 37%) presented more atrial fibrillation, higher values of brain natriuretic peptides, higher indexed values of left atrial and ventricular dimensions, and pulmonary pressure and were more symptomatic (all P ≤ 0.006). After inverse probability weighting, women were at higher risk of early stroke. They presented higher long-term mortality than men after MVr (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.14-2.30], P = 0.007), whereas mortality was similar between sexes after MVR (HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.71-1.17], P = 0.47). Independent predictors of long-term mortality were mainly the presence of mitral annulus calcification in men, and left ventricular ejection fraction and DMR severity in women (all P ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this large series of patients surgically treated for DMR, women had worse preoperative presentation, higher early postoperative rates of stroke, and higher long-term risk of mortality when treated by 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".