TAVR in Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Review of the PARTNER 2 Trial and its Future Implications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following publication of the results of the PARTNER trial, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recognized the success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) by incorporating it as a feasible option in high-surgical risk patients, and recommending it as the standard of care for patients at prohibitive risk of surgery. Although this was recognized as a major success in the field of percutaneous valve replacement, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) continued to be realized as the procedure of choice for low and intermediate surgical risk patients. Meanwhile, observational studies - predominantly from Europe - showed encouraging results for TAVR in lower-risk populations. With a lack of any large randomized controlled clinical trial, however, the advantages of TAVR continued to be limited to only a minority of patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. METHODS: Between December 2011 and November 2013, the PARTNER 2 investigators enrolled a total of 2,032 intermediate-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers in the United States and Canada. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo either TAVR or SAVR. The primary end point was death and neurological events after two years. RESULTS: The study results showed similar rates for death and neurological events in the TAVR and SAVR groups. The TAVR group was found to have a larger valve area and a lower incidence of acute kidney injury, bleeding events, and atrial fibrillation. Conversely, the SAVR group experienced fewer vascular complications and lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the PARTNER 2 trial are reviewed, and its implications for the future discussed.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".