MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414984390 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.040496

Competing Risks of Cardiac and Noncardiac Mortality in Patients With Secondary Mitral Regurgitation Undergoing Transcatheter Edge‐to‐Edge Repair

2025· article· en· W4414984390 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Esposito, Marco Di Maio, Cesare Baldi, Emilio Di Lorenzo, Michele Bellino, Angelo Silverio, Marianna Adamo, Arturo Giordano, Francesco De Felice, Carmelo Grasso, Antonio Popolo Rubbio, Paolo Denti, Cosmo Godino, Federico De Marco, Fausto Castriota, Ida Monteforte, Annalisa Mongiardo, Anna Sonia Petronio, Gabriele Crimi, Diego Maffeo, Antonio L. Bartorelli, Rodolfo Citro, Gennaro Galasso, Giuseppe Tarantini, Giovanni Esposito, Corrado Tamburino, Francesco Bedogni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitral regurgitationIncidence (geometry)Heart failureRegurgitation (circulation)Functional mitral regurgitationSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The relative impact of cardiac and noncardiac mortality in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair (M‐TEER) has been poorly investigated. We aimed to assess the competing risks and independent predictors of cardiac and noncardiac mortality in a real‐world secondary mitral regurgitation population treated with M‐TEER and included in the GIOTTO (Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology [GIse] Registry Of Transcatheter Treatment of Mitral Valve Regurgitation) registry. Methods Competing risks analysis was used to assess the cumulative incidence of cardiac and noncardiac mortality. Cox regression identified independent predictors of each outcome. Co‐primary outcomes were cardiac and noncardiac death at 2 years. Results The analysis included 1185 consecutive patients with secondary mitral regurgitation treated with M‐TEER between January 2016 and March 2020 (median age 74 years). Two‐year cumulative incidences of cardiac and noncardiac mortality were 19% and 12%, respectively. At multivariable analysis, predictors of cardiac mortality were age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P =0.002), New York Heart Association class (HR, 1.44; P =0.018), previous hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 1.67; P =0.016), hemoglobin (HR, 0.89; P =0.016), left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (HR, 1.02; P =0.025), left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 0.98; P =0.022), and daily furosemide dose (HR, 1.19; P =0.003). Predictors of noncardiac mortality were New York Heart Association class (HR, 1.70; P =0.03), estimated glomerular filtration rate (HR, 0.98; P =0.002), and smoking habit (HR, 1.82; P =0.009). Conclusions Patients with secondary mitral regurgitation treated with M‐TEER show a high 2‐year incidence of both cardiac and noncardiac mortality. Understanding competing risks of mortality may improve patient selection for M‐TEER.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.324
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→