One-year multicentre outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN XT valve: the PREVAIL transapical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate 1-year outcomes of the multicentre PREVAIL transapical (TA) study of TA-aortic valve implantation (AVI) in high-risk patients. METHODS: From September 2009 to August 2010, a total of 150 patients, aged 81.6 ± 5.8 years, 40.7% female, were included at 12 European TA-AVI experienced sites. Patients received 23 (n = 36), 26 (n = 57) and 29 mm (n = 57) second-generation SAPIEN XT™ (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) valves. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 24.3 ± 7.0, and mean Society Thoracic Surgeons score was 7.5 ± 4.4%. RESULTS: Survival was 91.3% at 30 days and 77.9% at 1 year. Subgroup analysis revealed survivals of 91.7/88.9, 86.0/70.2, 96.55/91.2% for patients receiving 23-, 26- and 29-mm valves at 30 days and at 1 year, respectively. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and low gradients. Aortic incompetence was none in 41/48, trace 30/36, mild 22/12 and moderate in 7/4% at discharge and 1 year. Walking distance increased from 221 (postimplant) to 284 m (at 1 year, P = 0.0004). Three patients required reoperation due to increasing aortic incompetence during follow-up. Causes of mortality at 1 year were cardiac (n = 7), stroke (n = 1) and others (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: The European PREVAIL multicentre trial demonstrates good functionality and good outcomes for TA-AVI using the second-generation SAPIEN XT prosthesis and the ASCENDRA-II delivery system. The 29-mm SAPIEN XT valve was successfully introduced and showed excellent results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".