MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982216035 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0510

P914Balloon aortic valve valvuloplasty as palliative therapy in severe aortic valve stenosis: 10 years experience in a single centre

2019· article· en· W2982216035 on OpenAlexaff
Francesca Mantovani, Marie‐Annick Clavel, F Jayme, L Valli, Ricardo Mola, Chiara Leuzzi, Alessandro Navazio, Vincenzo Guiducci

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic valvuloplastyCardiogenic shockCardiologyInternal medicineStenosisAortic valve replacementAortic valve stenosisAortic valveComorbidityBalloonRetrospective cohort studySurgeryPopulationMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Improved technology together with greater operator experience has led to refinement of balloon aortic valve valvuloplasty (BAV) in recent years. It may provide a palliative treatment option in high-risk patients, highly symptomatic, for whom no other invasive therapy is available. However, there has not been universal adoption of BAV as a standalone therapy. Methods A retrospective analysis of ten years of practice of BAV as palliative strategy in patient with symptomatic aortic stenosis between March 2008 and June 2018 was performed. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data on all patients were collected. Results A total of 152 patients (95 women, 63%) with a mean age of 85±6 years underwent BAV. All patients had severe aortic stenosis, were considered not suitable to aortic valve replacement nor Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for appreciable comorbidity (STS score 9±5) and had severe symptoms mainly of heart failure which required medical attention. A statistically significant decrease in trans-valvular gradient was observed (peak to peak gradient before BAV 52±22 mmHg, after BAV 29±16 mmHg, delta gradient 24±14 mmHg; p<0.0001). Only one patient, who undergone BAV because of cardiogenic shock, died during the procedure. Considering the high-risk population, intra-hospital mortality was low (7 patients died, 4%). Mortality at 1-year follow-up was 43% and survival free from new hospitalization for heart failure was 63% at 1-year follow-up and 53% at 2 years follow-up. 19 patients (13%) required repeated BAV during follow-up. Conclusion BAV as a palliative procedure in high-risk patients who are highly symptomatic, has a low operative mortality in our experience. BAV is associated with a significant reduction in aortic valve gradient and is valuable since half of the patients were alive without re-hospitalizations for heart failure at 2 years follow-up. Acknowledgement/Funding None

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→