SCAI/AATS/ACC/STS operator and institutional requirements for transcatheter valve repair and replacement, Part III: Pulmonic valve
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PREAMBLE With the evolution of transcatheter valve replacement, an important opportunity has arisen for cardiologists and surgeons to collaborate in identifying the criteria for performing these procedures. Therefore, The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) have partnered to provide recommendations for institutions to assess their potential for instituting and/or maintaining a transcatheter valve program. This article concerns transcatheter pulmonic valve replacement (tPVR). tPVR procedures are in their infancy with few reports available on which to base an expert consensus statement. Therefore, many of these recommendations are based on expert consensus and the few reports available. As the procedures evolve, technology advances, experience grows, and more data accumulate, there will certainly be a need to update this consensus statement. The writing committee and participating societies believe that the recommendations in this report serve as appropriate requisites. In some ways, these recommendations apply to institutions more than to individuals. There is a strong consensus that these new valve therapies are best performed using a Heart Team approach; thus, these credentialing criteria should be applied at the institutional level. Partnering societies used the ACC's policy on relationships with industry (RWI) and other entities to author this document ( http://www.acc.org/guidelines/about-guidelines-and-clinical-documents ). To avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest due to industry relationships or personal interests, all members of the writing committee, as well as peer reviewers of the document, were asked to disclose all current healthcare‐related relationships including those existing 12 months before the initiation of the writing effort. A committee of interventional cardiologists and surgeons was formed to include a majority of members with no relevant RWI and to be led by an interventional cardiology cochair and a surgical cochair with no relevant RWI. Authors with relevant RWI were not permitted to draft or vote on text or recommendations pertaining to their RWI. RWI were reviewed on all conference calls and updated as changes occurred. Author and peer reviewer RWI pertinent to this document are disclosed in the Appendices. In addition, to ensure complete transparency, authors' comprehensive disclosure information (including RWI not pertinent to this document) is available in Appendix AII. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the partnering societies without commercial support. SCAI, AATS, ACC, and STS believe that adherence to these recommendations will maximize the chances that these therapies will become a successful part of the armamentarium for treating valvular heart disease in the United States. In addition, these recommendations will hopefully facilitate optimum quality during the delivery of this therapy, which will be important to the development and successful implementation of future, less invasive approaches to structural heart disease.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».