4071Early changes in quality of life after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: One-year results from the 3M TAVR Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In patients with severe calcific aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to significantly improve quality of life (QOL). However, changes in QOL at early follow-up (<1 month), and following next-day discharge are poorly understood. Methods A total of 411 patients at 13 centers were enrolled in the Multimodality, Multidisciplinary but Minimalist TAVR (3M TAVR) study in 2015–2017. QOL was evaluated using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) in participants with a baseline score and at least one score at 2 weeks, 30 days and 1 year. Study endpoints were change in (1) KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS) and (2) minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Mixed effects models were used to explore patterns of change from baseline, with fixed terms for time, status at 1-year and their interaction terms, and a random intercept for subject to account for within subject correlation. Descriptive statistics were used to report MCID. Results Data were available for 358 (87.1%) participants. 216 (60.3%) were men with a median age 84.0 and STS 5.0 There was significant increase in QOL 2 weeks after TAVR (p≤0.01), and further significant improvement at the 1-month timepoint (p<0.01) for participants who were alive at 1 year. Sex, age category, and STS score category did not have a significant effect on the change in QOL (p>0.05). In the first 2 weeks, moderate (10–20 points) and large (>20 points) improvements were observed in 19.9% and 49.0% of the surviving patients, respectively; at 1-year, similar MCID were seen in 14.6% and 64.0% respectively. Figure 1 Conclusion This is the first study to report significant increase in QOL 2 weeks after TAVR, with sustained improvement during the first year in patients treated with the Vancouver TAVR Clinical Pathway with a goal of next-day discharge. Further studies are necessary to determine whether alternative TAVR clinical pathways yield similar findings. Acknowledgement/Funding Investigator-initiated unrestricted research grant, Edwards
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".