Practical valvular issues in patients requiring ventricular assist devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy in patients with advanced heart failure continues to grow, experience with concomitant valvular diseases present either before or after VAD implantation continues to accrue. In this review, we discuss recent data and current practice as it pertains to the subject of concomitant valvular disease in patients requiring VADs. RECENT FINDINGS: Persistent aortic valve closure has been identified as a potential contributor to aortic valve 'disuse atrophy' resulting in valve degeneration. Dilation of the aortic root may be predictive of future development of aortic insufficiency. Novel echocardiographic parameters to identify the severity of aortic insufficiency following VAD implantation may be useful for risk stratification. Concomitant repair of significant mitral regurgitation may confer benefit to pulmonary vascular resistance and right ventricular function; however, this remains controversial. Concomitant repair of significant tricuspid regurgitation has not demonstrated early postoperative benefit nor survival benefit. Atrial fibrillation has emerged as a risk factor that may predict accelerated progression of postoperative tricuspid regurgitation. SUMMARY: Management of aortic insufficiency, mitral regurgitation or tricuspid regurgitation in patients requiring VADs continues to be the source of controversy. As experience accrues with varying strategies to prevent or manage these valvular lesions, our understanding of the impact of these strategies continues to evolve.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".