Multicenter evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using either <scp>SAPIEN XT</scp> or <scp>C</scp>ore<scp>V</scp>alve: Degree of device oversizing by computed‐tomography and clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association between computed-tomography-derived degrees of device oversizing and clinical outcomes during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest that different devices reach optimal results with different degrees of device oversizing. Therefore, similar sized devices of different types (SAPIEN XT and CoreValve) may be favored in different annular ranges and a case considered borderline between two sizes of a specific device might be within a favorable range of another. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicenter registry of 615 consecutive transfemoral TAVR procedures using either SAPIEN XT or CoreValve was analyzed. A first group of 190 patients had annular sizes for which only moderate oversizing degree was feasible (5-20% by area or 2.5-9.5% by perimeter). A second group included 178 patients that had annulus size for which only large oversizing degree was feasible (20.1-35% by area or 9.6-16.2% by perimeter). In the "only large oversizing feasible group" there were more annular rupture events in patients treated by SAPIEN XT valve as compared to those treated by CoreValve (3.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.04). In the "only moderate oversizing feasible group", those treated by CoreValve had more post balloon dilatation and 30-day major stroke in comparison with those treated by SAPIEN XT (16.1% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.04 and 8% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal clinical performance of CoreValve and SAPIEN XT appears to be reached with different degrees of oversizing. Certain annular sizes that allow for only moderate or large oversizing, but not both, appear to benefit from a device specific approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".