Abstract 8922: Association between Metabolic Syndrome and Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients with Severe Calcific Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We reported that in patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis (AS), metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with more pronounced concentric LV hypertrophy. Severe LV concentric hypertrophy has been linked to reduced survival following aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between MetS and prevalence of LV concentric hypertrophy in patients with severe AS referred to AVR. Method and Results: 510 patients with severe AS underwent isolated AVR. Among 510 patients undergoing isolated AVR, 131 (26%) had the MetS and 109 (21%) had type 2 diabetes (T2D). Patients with T2D or MetS had larger waist circumference (T2D: 106±16; MetS: 104 ±12 vs.noMetS-noT2D: 96±13cm; p<0.0001), higher incidence of hypertension (86; 85 vs. 50%) and coronary artery disease (CAD: 22; 18 vs. 10%) compared to those with noMetS-no T2D. The severity of AS was similar in the 3 groups (Peak aortic jet velocity [Vmax]:417±81; 416 ±81 vs. 424±84mmHg; p=0.13). Patients were classified into four different LV patterns according to relative wall thickness ratio and LV mass indexed (LVMi) to a 2.7 power of height (Figure). Distribution of LV patterns was worse (p<0.0001) in T2D and MetS groups compared to noMetS-noT2D group (Figure). Diabetes and MetS were independently (p=0.02 and p=0.04) associated with higher LVMi after adjustment for age, gender, hypertension, Vmax, mitral regurgitation, CAD, history of myocardial infarction, and valvulo-arterial impedance. One year after AVR, decrease in LVMi was similar in the 3 groups (p=0.44) and thereby postoperative LVMi remained higher (p=0.003) in the T2D and MetS groups (49 ±14 and 53±12 g/m 2.7 ) compared to noMetS-noT2D group (43±15 g/m 2.7 ). Conclusion: MetS and T2D are independently associated with higher prevalence of LV concentric hypertrophy in patients with severe AS and with more residual hypertrophy following AVR, which may in turn increase short- and long- term postoperative mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".