Risk Prediction in Aortic Valve Replacement: Incremental Value of the Preoperative Echocardiogram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk prediction is a critical step in patient selection for aortic valve replacement (AVR), yet existing risk scores incorporate very few echocardiographic parameters. We sought to evaluate the incremental predictive value of a complete echocardiogram to identify high-risk surgical candidates before AVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing surgical AVR with or without coronary bypass was assembled at 2 tertiary centers. Preoperative echocardiograms were reviewed by independent observers to quantify chamber size/function and valve function. Patient databases were queried to extract clinical data. The cohort consisted of 432 patients with a mean age of 73.5 years and 38.7% females. Multivariable logistic regression revealed 3 echocardiographic predictors of in-hospital mortality or major morbidity: E/e' ratio reflective of elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressure; myocardial performance index reflective of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction; and small LV end-diastolic cavity size. Addition of these echocardiographic parameters to the STS risk score led to an integrated discrimination improvement of 4.1% (P<0.0001). After a median follow-up of 2 years, Cox regression revealed 5 echocardiographic predictors of all-cause mortality: small LV end-diastolic cavity size; LV mass index; mitral regurgitation grade; right atrial area index; and mean aortic gradient <40 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic measures of LV diastolic dysfunction and RV performance add incremental value to the STS risk score and should be integrated in prediction when evaluating the risk of AVR. In addition, findings of small hypertrophied LV cavities and/or low mean aortic gradients confer a higher risk of 2-year 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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".