MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416573083 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2025.11.020

Clinical Presentation and Midterm Results of Mitral Valve Surgery for Calcified Mitral Valve Disease---the MITRACURE Registry

2025· article· en· W4416573083 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gaspard Suc, Julien Dreyfus, Julien Ternacle, Thierry Le Tourneau, Philippe Demers, Linrui Guo, Angel Fu, Jean-Claude Dib, Mohammad Al Fadhalah, Thays Sokolov, Amédéo Anselmi, Didier Tchétché, Ophélie Brault Meslin, Ange Goutondji, Yoan Lavie‐Badie, Patrick Seknadji, Augustin Coisne, Dimitri Arangalage, Anne Bernard, Usha Manian, Malek Kass, Antonio Fiore, A Maudière, Yohann Bohbot, Aurélien Seemann, Nadjib Hammoudi, Loïc Bière, Pierre-Yves Leroux, Jessica Forcillo, Antoine Jeu, Mohammed Nejjari, Olivier Huttin, Martine Gilard, Claire Bouleti, David T. Harnett, Jean‐François Légaré, Thiziri Si Moussi, Jian Ye, Catherine Sportouch, Bindu Bittira, Laura Munte, Fabrice Bauer, Howard Leong‐Poi, Ali Fatehi Hassanabad, Thomas Modine, Jordan Bernick, George A. Wells, Roja Gauda, Bernard Iung, William Kent, Michael Chu, Denis Bouchard, Jean‐François Obadia, David Messika–Zeitoun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of New BrunswickNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchSaint John Regional HospitalWestern UniversitySt. John’s Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalSt. Michael's HospitalSt. Boniface HospitalHealth Sciences NorthSt Mary's Hospital CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEdwards Lifesciences
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)ComplicationMitral valveEuroSCOREPopulationCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Calcified mitral valve disease (CMVD) is an increasingly recognized condition associated with specific management challenges. MITRACURE, a large, multicenter, observational registry conducted in France and Canada, provides real-world insights into the characteristics and outcomes of patients with CMVD undergoing MV surgery. METHODS: Among the 3522 patients included in MITRACURE, patients identified with CMVD were matched 4:1 for age, sex, and concomitant procedures with patients with myxomatous MV disease. RESULTS: Sixty patients (2%) with CMVD were matched to 240 with myxomatous MV disease. Compared with the myxomatous cohort, CMVD patients had a greater burden of cardiovascular risk factors, more comorbidities, and a more advanced presentation, with 70% vs 52% in New York Heart Association class III or IV (P = 0.01). In-hospital mortality and major complication rates (composite of death, cardiogenic shock/low cardiac output requiring inotropes, acute renal failure requiring dialysis, and stroke or transient ischemic attack) were significantly higher in CMVD than in myxomatous patients (20% vs 4% and 38% vs 20%, both P < 0.01). The median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) measure was slightly higher in CMVD patients (3.5 [interquartile range 2.2-5.7]) compared to those with myxomatous disease (2.6 [interquartile range 1.5-4.2], P < 0.01). However, the observed mortality in the CMVD group was 3-4 times higher than predicted, whereas in the myxomatous group it was consistent with predicted values. CONCLUSIONS: CMVD defines a high-risk surgical population with substantial baseline cardiovascular morbidity and markedly elevated postoperative mortality and complication rates that were substantially underestimated by EuroSCORE II emphasizing the need for refined risk prediction models and individualized management strategies in this subset of patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→