The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Numerous studies have linked prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) to adverse outcomes. Its correlation with long-term survival has been described but with contradicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies aims to determine the hazard of PPM after AVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Medline and EMBase databases were searched for English-language original publications. Two researchers independently screened studies and extracted data. Pooled estimates were obtained by random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to detect sources of heterogeneity. The search yielded 348 potentially relevant studies; 34 were included comprising 27 186 patients and 133 141 patient-years. Defined by the universally accredited indexed effective orifice area <0.85 cm(2)/m(2), 44.2% of patients were categorized as having PPM. In 34.2 and 9.8% of patients moderate (0.65-0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) and severe (<0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) PPM was present, respectively. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.18-1.51), but only a trend to an increase in cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.88-2.60) was recognized. Analysis by severity of PPM demonstrated that both moderate and severe PPM increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.07-1.33 and HR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.38-2.45) and cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.02-1.71 and HR = 6.46, 95% CI: 2.79-14.97). Further analyses showed a consistent effect over separate time intervals during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Prosthesis-patient mismatch is associated with an increase in all-cause and cardiac-related mortality over long-term follow-up. We recommend that current efforts to prevent PPM should receive more emphasis and a widespread acceptance to improve long-term survival after AVR.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".