MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome and Impact of Surgery in Paradoxical Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

2013· article· en· W2009766498 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dania Mohty, Julien Magné, Mathieu Deltreuil, Victor Aboyans, Najmeddine Echahidi, Claude Cassat, Philippe Pîbarot, Marc Laskar, P Virot

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyEjection fractionStenosisInternal medicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance and management of paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG-AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remain debated. The aim of this study is to determine the features and outcome of LFLG-AS assessed using cardiac catheterization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2010, 768 patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>50%) and severe AS (valve area ≤ 1 cm(2)) without other valvular disease underwent cardiac catheterization. Mean age was 74 ± 8 years, 42% were women, and 46% had associated coronary artery disease. The prevalence of LFLG (indexed left ventricular stroke volume <35 mL/m(2) and mean gradient <40 mm Hg), normal flow high gradient, normal flow low gradient, and low flow high gradient were 13%, 50%, 22%, and 15%, respectively. Compared with patients with normal flow high gradient, those with LFLG were significantly older, with significantly reduced systemic arterial compliance and vascular resistances and increased valvulo-arterial impedance (all P<0.05). Ten-year survival was reduced in LFLG-AS (32 ± 9%) compared with normal flow high gradient (66 ± 4%; P=0.0002). After adjustment for other risk factors, LFLG-AS was independently associated with reduced long-term survival (hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-3.07; P=0.02). However, despite higher operative mortality, patients with LFLG-AS undergoing aortic valve replacement seemed to have better long-term survival than those managed conservatively (5-year survival rate: 63 ± 6% versus 38 ± 15%; P=0.007; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.59; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This large cardiac catheterization-based study reports that the LFLG-AS entity is not rare and is associated with worse outcome whether treated medically or surgically. However, these patients may have better long-term survival if treated surgically. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm this finding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207