{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03723404255319149, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.0625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The impact of complete versus partial preservation of the sub‐valvular apparatus on left ventricular function in mitral valve replacement

In mitral valve replacement (MVR), sudden increases in afterload and disruption of the annular‐chordal‐papillary‐left‐ventricular wall causes left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in the early postoperative period. Preservation of the posterior mitral leaflet apparatus (MVR‐P) has a favorable outcome on LV function. However, there is paucity of data on the impact of complete preservation of the sub‐valvular apparatus (MVR‐C).