Understanding experiences of undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: one-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for frail, older adults with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Although research about long-term clinical outcomes is emerging, there is limited evidence from the perspectives of patients and family caregivers on their perceived benefits and challenges after TAVI. AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe older adults and family caregivers' perspectives on undergoing TAVI at one year post-procedure. METHODS: Qualitative description was the method of inquiry. A purposive sample of 31 patients and 15 family caregivers was recruited from a TAVI programme in western Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants one year after TAVI. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: All participants were satisfied with the decision to undergo TAVI. There were three central themes. First, recovery was experienced in the context of aging and comorbidities, which was shaped by patients' limited options for care and post-procedure symptom burden. Second, reconciling expectations with reality meant that, for some patients, symptom burden remained prevalent and was also influenced by others' expectations. Third, recommendations for recovery related to having information needs met, keeping informed of evolving care processes, and addressing individualised needs for support. CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives of participants provide a valuable contribution to the literature about undergoing TAVI. Clinicians need to be attentive to patients' expectations of benefit and temper these with consideration of the individual's broader health situation to provide treatment decision support. Patients and family caregivers also need adequate teaching and support to facilitate safe transition home given the shift towards early discharge after TAVI.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".