Clinical outcomes and economic impact of transcatheter mitral leaflet repair in heart failure patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a common valvular heart disorder requiring intervention once it becomes severe. Transcatheter mitral repair with the MitraClip device is a safe and effective therapy for selected patients denied surgery. The authors sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic impact of this therapy compared to medical management in heart-failure patients with symptomatic mitral regurgitation. Methods and results: The study was comprised of two phases; an observational study of patients with heart failure and mitral regurgitation treated with either medical therapy or the MitraClip, and an economic model. Results of the observational study were used to estimate parameters for the decision model, which estimated costs, and benefits in a hypothetical cohort of patients with heart failure and moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation treated with either standard medical therapy or MitraClip. The cohort of patients treated with the MitraClip was propensity matched to a population of heart failure patients, and their outcomes compared. At a mean follow-up of 22 months, all-cause mortality was 21% in the MitraClip cohort and 42% in the medical management cohort (p = .007). The decision model demonstrated that MitraClip increased life expectancy from 1.87–3.60 years and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from 1.13–2.76 years. The incremental cost was $52,500 Canadian dollars, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $32,300.00 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to the survival benefit. Conclusion: In heart failure patients with symptomatic moderate–severe mitral regurgitation, therapy with the MitraClip is associated with superior survival and is cost-effective compared to medical therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".