Predictors of Poor Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive option for treatment of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. We sought to identify patients at high risk for poor outcome after TAVR using a novel definition of outcome that integrates quality of life with mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 2137 patients who underwent TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial or its associated continued access registry, quality of life was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary Scale (KCCQ-OS; range 0-100, where a higher score equates to a better quality of life) at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months after TAVR. A poor 6-month outcome (defined as death, KCCQ-OS score <45, or ≥10-point decrease in KCCQ-OS score compared with baseline) occurred in 704 patients (33%). Using a split-sample design, we developed a multivariable model to identify a parsimonious set of covariates to identify patients at high risk for poor outcome. The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c-index=0.66) and good calibration with the observed data, performed similarly in the separate validation cohort (c-index=0.64), and identified 211 patients (10% of the population) with a ≥50% likelihood of a poor outcome after TAVR. A second model that explored predictors of poor outcome at 1 year identified 1102 patients (52%) with ≥50% likelihood and 178 (8%) with ≥70% likelihood of a poor 1-year outcome after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large, multicenter cohort, we have developed and validated predictive models that can identify patients at high risk for a poor outcome after TAVR. Although model discrimination was moderate, these models may help guide treatment choices and offer patients realistic expectations of outcomes based on their presenting characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".