MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 364: Results of a Province-wide Field Evaluation of the Use and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) in Quebec Compared With the STS/ACC Registry

2014· article· en· W2259291976 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie Lambert, G. Sas, Nataliya Dragieva, Benoit Daneault, Philippe Généraux, Nicolas Noiseux, Yoan Lamarche, Giuseppe Martucci, Réda Ibrahim, Benoît de Varennes, Éric Dumont, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, Michel Carrier, Marco Spaziano, Jean Morin, Peter Bogaty

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecMontreal Heart InstituteRoyal Victoria HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalHôpital FleurimontInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeChristian ministryRetrospective cohort studyMedical recordSurgeryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: After a review of the evidence, our cardiology evaluation unit recommended to the Quebec Ministry of Health that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) should be used in carefully selected patients and that use and outcomes be independently monitored. Herein, we describe the first results of our province-wide field evaluation of patient and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes and compare them with the STS/ACC TVT registry. Methods: Our trained data abstractors conducted a retrospective review of medical charts of all TAVI cases (n=96) in 6 hospitals during April-July 2013. Variables, outcomes and definitions were chosen to enable valid comparison with other registries in Canada and the USA. The evaluation protocol was created in collaboration with a scientific committee of representative interventionists and surgeons. Results: During the 4-month period, the number of TAVI patients varied from 4 to 37 across the 6 centers. Median age was 83 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 78-86) vs 84 years (IQR: 78-88) in the TVT registry. Half of Quebec TAVI patients were women, as in TVT. Documentation of an evaluation by a surgeon was found for only 58% of patients and the STS predicted risk of operative mortality was documented for only 54%. Of these, the median STS score was 6% (IQR: 4-10) compared to 7% (IQR: 5-11) in TVT where 91% of patients were evaluated by 2 surgeons. The most common vascular access approach in Quebec was transfemoral (70% vs. 64% in TVT); the transapical approach was used less in Quebec than in TVT (16% vs. 29%). While all TAVI in the TVT registry used Edwards SAPIEN XT valves, in Quebec 71% of TAVI used Edwards SAPIEN XT valves, 26% were Medtronic Corevalve and 3% were Portico valves. In-hospital mortality in Quebec was 6.3% (95% CI: 1.3-11.2) compared with 5.5% (95% CI: 5.0-6.1) in TVT. Conversion to surgery (3% vs 1%) and insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (13% vs 7%) were higher in Quebec than in TVT. TAVI patients in Quebec spent less time in intensive care (median 31 hours (IQR: 23-70) vs 46 hours (IQR: 25-77) and in hospital after TAVI (median 5 days (IQR: 3-8) vs 6 (IQR: 4-10). They were also more likely to be discharged home than patients in the TVT registry (80% vs 63%). Conclusions: Preliminary results from a province-wide TAVI registry in Quebec suggest that practice and outcomes are similar to those observed in the TVT registry. Compared with TVT, notable differences in practice were less documentation of surgical evaluation and of STS predicted mortality, less use of the transapical approach and more frequent need for a permanent pacemaker. Some differences may relate to use of a greater variety of valve types in Quebec. In-hospital mortality was similar. These results will be discussed with each TAVI team. Continued monitoring and long-term follow-up in collaboration with clinical experts are essential to promote an optimal quality of care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207