Clinical outcomes after trans‐catheter aortic valve replacement in men and women in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate sex-differences in outcomes after trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a population-based cohort from Ontario, Canada. BACKGROUND: Prior studies comparing outcomes in men and women after TAVR have yielded divergent results. Some studies have suggested that women have better survival than men while others have not corroborated this finding. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using chart abstraction data on all TAVR procedures performed between 2007 and 2013 in Ontario, Canada. Patients who had emergency TAVR procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-days and 1-year. Secondary outcomes included mortality at last follow-up, cause-specific, and all-cause hospital readmission. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity score was used to adjust for baseline differences between men and women. RESULTS: The final study cohort consisted of 453 women and 546 men with a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Women were generally older and more frail but had less comorbid conditions. Women had lower unadjusted mean EuroScores (7% ± 5% vs 8% ± 7%; P = 0.008), but underwent significantly more trans-apical procedures (26.5% vs 19.2%; P = 0.006) than men. After IPTW, the groups were well balanced. Although mortality was numerically higher for women at 30-days (7.2% vs 5.4%), this was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). At 1-year, there was no difference in mortality (18.2% vs 19.2%; P = 0.85). There were no significant differences in all-cause readmission. CONCLUSION: In this population-based cohort including all patients undergoing TAVR, mortality or all-cause readmission were not significantly different between men and women. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".