Comparison of Inoue balloon, metallic commissurotome and multi-track double-balloon valvuloplasty in the treatment of rheumatic mitral stenosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND Percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) is a well known non-surgical technique for treating patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS). There are very few studies that have compared the 3 techniques together for their safety and efficacy. METHODS: To compare the three different techniques for percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) using Inoue balloon (IB), metallic commissurotome (PMMC), or multi-track double balloon (MTDB) in patients with MS. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients were subjected to PMV using any of the 3 techniques, IB, PMMC or MTDB. The overall success rate was 97.3% (n = 473); 95.7% for IB, 97.6% for PMMC, and 98.3% for MTDB. Overall, the transmitral gradient decreased from 20.7 +/- 7.2 mmHg to 6.5 +/- 3.7 mmHg (p < 0.001) and mitral valve area (MVA) increased from 0.87 +/- 0.2 cm(2) to 1.9 +/- 0.4 cm(2) (p < 0.001). Left atrial pressure decreased from 29.3 +/- 8.4 mmHg to 16.1 +/- 11.5 mmHg (p < 0.001) and pulmonary arterial pressure decreased from 76.9 +/- 41.8 mmHg to 45.2 +/- 17.6 mmHg (p < 0.001). Thirteen patients (2.7%) required mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe mitral regurgitation (MR) while one patient (0.2%) developed cardiac tamponade requiring urgent pericardiocentesis followed by surgical repair of the tear and open mitral valvotomy. There was no statistical difference among the 3 techniques used. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty is an effective procedure for MS with any of the three above techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".