Direct Transcatheter Heart Valve Implantation Versus Implantation With Balloon Predilatation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as having potential advantages over TAVR with balloon aortic valve predilatation (BAVP) in reducing procedural complications, but there are few data to support this approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients included in the Brazilian TAVR registry with CoreValve and Sapien-XT prosthesis were compared according to the implantation technique, with or without BAVP. Clinical and echocardiographic data were analyzed in overall population and after propensity score matching. A total of 761 consecutive patients (BAVP=372; direct-TAVR=389) were included. Direct-TAVR was possible in 99% of patients, whereas device success was similar between groups (BAVP=81.2% versus direct-TAVR=78.1%; P=0.3). No differences in clinical outcomes at 30 days and 1 year were observed, including all-cause mortality (7.6% versus 10%; P=0.25 and 18.1% versus 24.5%; P=0.07, respectively) and stroke (2.8% versus 3.8%; P=0.85 and 5.5% versus 6.8%; P=0.56, respectively). Nonetheless, TAVR with BAVP was associated with a higher rate of new onset persistent left bundle branch block with the CoreValve (47.7% versus 35.1%; P=0.01 at 1 year). Mean gradient and incidence of moderate/severe aortic regurgitation were similar in both groups at 1 year (11% versus 13.3%; P=0.57 and 9.8±5.5 versus 8.7±4.3; P=0.09, respectively). After propensity score matching analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke remained similar. By multivariable analysis, BAVP and the use of CoreValve were independent predictors of new onset persistent left bundle branch block. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 TAVR strategies, with or without BAVP, provided similar clinical and echocardiographic outcomes over a midterm follow-up although BAVP was associated with a higher rate of new onset persistent left bundle branch block, particularly in patients receiving a CoreValve.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".