Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes between intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Recent studies have reported non-inferior outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-risk patients. However, a comparison of outcomes among TAVI patients depending upon the surgical risk score has not been performed in a large study. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of TAVI in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, to ascertain if the morbidity and mortality is related to the patient's risk profile or the procedure itself. Methods and results: A thorough computer-based search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. We included original research studies reporting data on TAVI in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. Patients in intermediate-risk group were compared to the high-risk cohort for device success, mortality, and complications. A total of 2414 patients in the intermediate-risk group were compared with 1597 high-risk patients. On meta-analysis, intermediate-risk group demonstrated similar device success [odds ratio (OR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.90, I2 = 0%, P = 0.2) but a lower 30-day mortality OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.86, I2 = 49%, P = 0.009). There was no difference in the incidence of stroke (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.80-1.71, I2 = 36%, P = 0.42) or permanent pacemaker implantation between the two groups (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82-1.32, I2 = 41%, P = 0.74). Conclusion: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in intermediate-risk patients carries a low mortality and high success. Incidence of pacemaker and stroke remains high in the lower risk group.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".