Abstract 18892: Clinical and Hemodynamic Factors Influence the Risk of Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights from the PARTNER I Trial and Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with increased mortality after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that clinical or hemodynamic factors might influence the relationship between significant PH and increased mortality. Methods: Among patients with symptomatic AS at high or prohibitive surgical risk receiving TAVR in the PARTNER I randomized trial or registry, 2180 patients with an invasive measurement of mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) recorded were included. PH was defined as: none (mPAP<25 mmHg), mild (25 to <35), and mod/sev (≥35). Results: One year all-cause mortality was worse with increasing severity of PH: none (n=785, 18.6%), mild (n=838, 22.7%), and mod/sev (n=557, 25.0%) (p=0.01). The association between mod/sev PH (vs. no PH) and 1y mortality varied by sex and renal function (interaction p=0.03 and p=0.06, respectively). In females, mod/sev PH was associated with increased mortality (24.6% vs. 14.1%, HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.32-2.73); in males it was not (24.9% vs. 22.2%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82-1.52). Additionally, mod/sev PH was associated with mortality in those with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <40 (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.28-2.42), but not in those with GFR ≥40. In a multivariable Cox PH model of patients with mod/sev PH, oxygen dependent lung disease, cerebrovascular disease, lower GFR, and lower baseline transvalvular mean gradient were each independently associated with increased 1y mortality (p<0.05 for all), whereas pulmonary artery compliance was the only hemodynamic variable associated with mortality (p=0.043) (Table). Conclusions: The relationship between mod/sev PH and increased mortality after TAVR is altered by sex and renal function. While lower pulmonary artery compliance is associated with increased mortality in patients with significant PH, clinical factors appear to be more influential in stratifying risk than hemodynamic indices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".