Impact of age on health status after TAVI or SAVR in low risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results from the PARTNER 3 Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) results in similar 5-year survival and quality of life compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and low surgical risk. Whether participants’ age at the time of intervention influences the health status benefit of TAVI vs. SAVR is unknown. Purpose To assess the relationship between age and both the short- and long-term health status outcomes of TAVI vs. SAVR among patients enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial. Methods We used data from the PARTNER 3 randomized trial to compare health status outcomes between TAVI and SAVR, stratified by age (<70, 70-74, 75-79, ≥80 years). Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, 12 months and annually through 5 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS) over the 5-year follow-up period (range 0-100; higher=better). The key secondary endpoint was an excellent outcome, defined as a KCCQ-OS>75 at 5-year follow-up without a decline of >10 points from baseline. Results Between March 2016 and October 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with severe AS were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to transfemoral TAVR using the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve or surgery in the PARTNER 3 trial. Among patients who underwent TAVI or SAVR (and had baseline health status available; TAVI: 494, SAVR: 449), 228 (24%) were <70, 284 (30%) were 70-74, 287 (31%) were 75-79, and 144 (15%) were ≥80 years old. Baseline health status was similar between the TAVI and SAVR groups as well as across age strata. At 30-day follow-up, health status was substantially better with TAVI than SAVR with similar differences across age strata (mean difference 13-18 points; Figure 1). At all other timepoints, there were no significant differences between TAVI and SAVR in any age group. The proportion of TAVI patients with an excellent outcome at 5-year follow-up ranged from 86% in the youngest subgroup to 73% in the oldest subgroup, with no significant differences compared with SAVR. Conclusions Among patients with severe AS at low surgical risk, TAVI using the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable valve resulted in substantially better health status in the early post-procedure period compared with SAVR across all age strata. Beyond the early recovery period, intermediate- and longer-term health status outcomes were similar with TAVI and SAVR, with no evidence of heterogeneity by age. Although longer term follow-up is necessary (and ongoing), these 5-year outcomes suggest that over the age range included in the PARTNER 3 trial, age alone should not play a dominant role in determining treatment recommendations for patients with severe AS.Health status by treatment and age group
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 | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».