Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation: present and future perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is becoming the standard of care for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis and a valid alternative for those at high surgical risk. Since the first percutaneous transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in humans in 2002, over 50,000 transcatheter aortic valves have been implanted in the last decade, with progressive improvement in the available devices. Overall, there are two main families of transcatheter prosthesis: self-expandable and nonself-expandable. The self-expandable devices, for which CoreValve(®) (Medtronic CV Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Luxembourg) represents the prototype, are characterized by a structure composed of shape memory materials, usually nitinol, which acquire its final shape once released. By contrast, the non-self-expandable prostheses, mainly represented by the Edwards(®) valve (Edwards Life Sciences, Inc., CA, USA), require balloon dilatation to reach its final shape. Although several publications have already provided positive data on both technologies, new clinical studies with improved systems are currently being conducted in order to provide more solid data and potentially expand the spectrum of patients who can benefit from this therapy. Thus, the aim of the present paper is to review the salient features of the two most used systems today (third-generation CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN XT(®)) as well as to provide data on other emerging valves and future perspectives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".