MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429160627 · doi:10.1161/jaha.115.003191

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With or Without Preimplantation Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2016· review· en· W2429160627 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Bagur, Chun Shing Kwok, Luis Nombela‐Franco, Peter Ludman, Mark de Belder, Sandro Sponga, Mark Gunning, James Nolan, Pantelis Diamantouros, Patrick Teefy, Bob Kiaii, Michael Chu, Mamas A. Mamas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineAortic valvuloplastyCardiologyRelative riskInternal medicineBalloonClinical endpointMeta-analysisAdverse effectStroke (engine)Aortic valveSurgeryConfidence intervalAortic valve stenosisRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preimplantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) is considered a routine procedure during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to facilitate prosthesis implantation and expansion; however, it has been speculated that fewer embolic events and/or less hemodynamic instability may occur if TAVI is performed without preimplantation BAV. The aim of this study was to systematically review the clinical outcomes associated with TAVI undertaken without preimplantation BAV. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a search of Medline and Embase to identify studies that evaluated patients who underwent TAVI with or without preimplantation BAV for predilation. Pooled analysis and random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the rate and risk of adverse outcomes. Sixteen studies involving 1395 patients (674 with and 721 without preimplantation BAV) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Crude device success was achieved in 94% (1311 of 1395), and 30-day all-cause mortality occurred in 6% (72 of 1282) of patients. Meta-analyses evaluating outcomes of strategies with and without preimplantation BAV showed no statistically significant differences in terms of mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.32-1.14, P=0.12), safety composite end point (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62-1.18, P=0.34), moderate to severe paravalvular leaks (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23-1.99, P=0.48), need for postdilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.13, P=0.58), stroke and/or transient ischemic attack (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30-1.71, P=0.45), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.30, P=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that TAVI procedures with or without preimplantation BAV were associated with similar outcomes for a number of clinically relevant end points. Further studies including a large number of patients are needed to ascertain the impact of TAVI without preimplantation BAV as a standard practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations51
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207