Interaction Between Frailty and Access Site in Older Adults Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine whether frail older adults undergoing nonfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures had a higher risk of 30-day and 12-month mortality. BACKGROUND: Frailty can help predict outcomes and guide therapy in older adults being considered for TAVR. Nonfemoral TAVR procedures are more invasive and impart a greater risk of adverse events, which may be less well tolerated in frail patients, compared with transfemoral TAVR procedures. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty Assessment Before Cardiac Surgery & Transcatheter Interventions) prospective multicenter cohort that consisted of older adults undergoing TAVR from 2012 to 2017. Frailty was assessed using the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT). Endpoints of interest were 30-day and 12-month all-cause mortality. Interaction tables and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate statistical interaction on the additive and multiplicative scales. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 723 patients with a mean age of 84 ± 6 years, of which 556 (77%) had femoral access and 167 (23%) had nonfemoral access. In frail patients with EFT scores ≥3 (35%), nonfemoral access was associated with increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48 to 10.31); whereas in nonfrail patients with EFT scores <3 (65%), nonfemoral access had no effect (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.34 to 4.94). There was statistical evidence of interaction between frailty and access site on 30-day mortality on the additive scale (relative excess risk due to interaction = 5.95). Nonfemoral access was associated with increased 1-year mortality in frail patients (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.93) but not in nonfrail patients (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 0.90 to 3.74), although there was no statistical evidence of interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Frail patients undergoing TAVR via a more invasive nonfemoral access face a substantially higher risk of 30-day mortality, whereas nonfrail older adults tolerate the procedure with a low short-term risk irrespective of access route.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".