MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941677670 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz275

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2941677670 on OpenAlexaff
George C.M. Siontis, Pavel Overtchouk, Thomas J. Cahill, Thomas Modine, Bernard Prendergast, Fabien Praz, Thomas Pilgrim, Tatjana Petrinic, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Georgia Salanti, Lars Søndergaard, Subodh Verma, Peter Jüni, Stephan Windecker

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisAortic valve replacementCardiologyAortic valveAortic valve stenosisInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Owing to new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, we compared the collective safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the entire spectrum of surgical risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016037273). We identified RCTs comparing TAVI with SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis reporting at different follow-up periods. We extracted trial, patient, intervention, and outcome characteristics following predefined criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 2 years for the main analysis. Seven trials that randomly assigned 8020 participants to TAVI (4014 patients) and SAVR (4006 patients) were included. The combined mean STS score in the TAVI arm was 9.4%, 5.1%, and 2.0% for high-, intermediate-, and low surgical risk trials, respectively. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a significant reduction of all-cause mortality compared to SAVR {hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.99], P = 0.030}; an effect that was consistent across the entire spectrum of surgical risk (P-for-interaction = 0.410) and irrespective of type of transcatheter heart valve (THV) system (P-for-interaction = 0.674). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation resulted in lower risk of strokes [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.98), P = 0.028]. Surgical aortic valve replacement was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complications [HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.34-2.93), P = 0.001] and permanent pacemaker implantations [HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.47-3.64), P < 0.001] compared to TAVI. CONCLUSION: Compared with SAVR, TAVI is associated with reduction in all-cause mortality and stroke up to 2 years irrespective of baseline surgical risk and type of THV system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.043
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations473
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207