Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: where will we be in 5 years?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has developed in less than 2 decades to be a viable procedure, carving out a niche position in our armamentarium to treat high-risk patients with aortic valve disease. Rapid advances are occurring in prosthesis design, catheter delivery system, imaging, and the hybrid operating room. RECENT FINDINGS: The PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic traNscathetER valve) randomized trial, cohort B confirms the superiority of the transfemoral TAVI compared with standard medical therapy with regard to overall survival and cardiac functional status. Major stroke and vascular complications, however, remain higher in the transfemoral TAVI group. Large European registries of both the transapical and transfemoral TAVI are reporting improved procedural success and early survival. The CoreValve and SAPIEN valves remain the forerunners, with accumulating evidence for use, and published 3-year prosthesis durability data for the latter. SUMMARY: Evidence is accumulating in support of TAVI for high-risk nonoperative aortic stenosis. Even before the PARTNER cohort A results, comparing TAVI and conventional aortic valve replacement, become available, the next generation devices and technological improvements are well underway to make the procedure even more reproducible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".