CoreValve Prosthesis Depth: What is the Optimal Measurement Target?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: A major drawback of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure using the self-expandable Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) prosthesis is the high incidence of conduction disturbances and the need for postprocedural permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. The depth of prosthesis implantation may be an important contributing factor. The study aim was to determine the relationship between angiographic measurements of the MCV prosthesis depth and the occurrence of new conduction disturbances and need for PPM after TAVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 157 consecutive patients who had undergone TAVR procedures with the MCV between 2009 and 2013. Patients with pre-existing pacemakers (n = 27) were excluded. Prosthesis depth was defined as the angiographic distance from the lowest part of the prosthesis to the base of the non-coronary cusp (NCcD) and the base of the left coronary cusp (LCcD). RESULTS: A 26 mm MCV was implanted in 50% of patients, and a 29 mm MCV in 38%. The rate of new ≥2nd degree atrioventricular block (AVB) after TAVR was 5%, and the incidence of new left ventricular bundle branch block (LBBB) was 23%. PPMs were implanted in 13 patients (10%) within 30 days after the procedure. Freedom from new ≥2nd degree AVB, LBBB and the need for PPM after TAVR was significantly higher among patients with NCcD <6 mm or LCcD <8 mm (90% and 89%, respectively) compared to patients with NCcD ≥6 mm or LCcD ≥8 mm (53% and 54%, respectively) (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis depth, measured relative to either the NCcD or LCcD, strongly predicted the occurrence of conduction disturbances and the need for PPM following TAVR with the MCV prosthesis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".