Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although short- and medium-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation are encouraging, long-term data on valve function and clinical outcomes are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive high-risk patients who had been declined as surgical candidates because of comorbidities but who underwent successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve between January 2005 and December 2006 and survived past 30 days were assessed. Clinical, echocardiographic, and computed tomographic follow-up examinations were performed. Seventy patients who underwent successful procedures and survived longer than 30 days were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 3 years. At a median follow-up of 3.7 years (interquartile range 3.4 to 4.3 years), survival was 57%. Survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 81%, 74%, and 61%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation was 98.5% (1 patient with endocarditis). During this early procedural experience, 11 patients died within 30 days, and 8 procedures were unsuccessful. When these patients were included, overall survival was 51%. Transaortic pressure gradients increased from 10.0 mm Hg (interquartile range 8.0 to 12.0 mm Hg) immediately after the procedure to 12.1 mm Hg (interquartile range 8.6 to 16.0 mm Hg) after 3 years (P=0.03). Bioprosthetic valve area decreased from a mean of 1.7±0.4 cm(2) after the procedure to 1.4±0.3 cm(2) after 3 years (P<0.01). Aortic incompetence after implantation was trivial or mild in 84% of cases and remained unchanged or improved over time. There were no cases of structural valvular deterioration, stent fracture, deformation, or valve migration. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation demonstrates good medium- to long-term durability and preserved hemodynamic function, with no evidence of structural failure. The procedure appears to offer an adequate and lasting resolution of aortic stenosis in selected patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".