Mitral valve annuloplasty and myocardial revascularization in the treatment of ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine perioperative mortality and morbidity and midterm results in patients undergoing coronary bypass graft and mitral valve annuloplasty with advanced dilated cardiomyopathy. Sixty-one patients with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and mitral valve annuloplasty between January 1998 and December 2003. Patients eligible for revascularization that presented a mild or more severe mitral valve regurgitation at echocardiography (effective regurgitant orifice > 0.2 cm(2)) were considered for annuloplasty with a Cosgrove ring. New York Heart Association class (NYHA) III/IV was present in 40 patients (66%) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III-IV in 19 (31%). A previous acute myocardial infarction was reported in 48 patients (79%). The mean number of graft anastomoses was 2.5 +/- 0.7 and the left internal mammary artery was used in 49 patients (80%). In-hospital mortality was 4.9% (3 patients), due to unsuccessful weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass, multiple organ failure, and stroke, respectively. Left ventricle ejection fraction improved from 28.9% +/- 5.2% preoperatively to 35.4% +/- 8.1% at follow-up (P = 0.0001) and a significant reduction in NYHA III/IV was detected: from 40 patients preoperatively (66%) to 14 (31%) at follow-up (P = 0.031). Midterm cardiac-related mortality rate was 3.4%. In our experience combined coronary artery bypass grafting and ring annuloplasty for ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy can be performed with acceptable risks for in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Midterm results show a good survival rate and a durable functional improvement 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".