MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After TAVR and SAVR

2019· article· en· W2987552233 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Summers, Martin B. Leon, Craig R. Smith, Susheel Kodali, Vinod H. Thourani, Raj Makkar, Philippe Pîbarot, John G. Webb, Jonathon Leipsic, Maria Alu, Aaron Crowley, Rebecca T. Hahn, Samir Kapadia, E. Murat Tuzcu, Lars G. Svensson, Paul Cremer, Wael A. Jaber

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioValve replacementAortic valve replacementInternal medicineCardiologyIncidence (geometry)Aortic valve stenosisEndocarditisAortic valveRate ratioSurgeryStenosisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a rare but critical mechanism of valve failure and death after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR, SAVR) warranting further analysis in modern aortic valve replacement experience. We characterize the incidence, risk factors, microbiological profile and outcomes of PVE from the PARTNER trials and registries (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve). Methods: We analyzed a pooled cohort of all patients in PARTNER 1 and PARTNER 2 trials and registries. Patients had severe aortic stenosis, were treated with TAVR or SAVR, and were analyzed with respect to development of PVE. PVE adjudication by a clinical events committee was based on modified Duke Criteria. The incidence, infection timing, organism, and association between PVE and all-cause mortality were analyzed. Results: 8530 patients were included. PVE occurred in 107 cases (5.06 PVE events per 1000 person-years over a mean follow-up of 2.69±1.55 years [95% CI, 4.19–6.12]). The incidence of TAVR-PVE (5.21 PVE per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 4.26–6.38]) was not significantly different from SAVR-PVE (4.10 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 2.33–7.22]; incident rate ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.70–2.32]; P =0.44). Temporal risk of PVE was similar for TAVR and SAVR, even after adjusting for competing risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.58–2.28]; P =0.69). Through multivariable analysis, PVE was associated with baseline cirrhosis (incident rate ratio, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.33–6.16]; P =0.007), pulmonary disease (incident rate ratio, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16–2.48]; P =0.006), and renal insufficiency (incident rate ratio, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.03–2.83]; P =0.04). Timing of PVE was similar between TAVR and SAVR (<30 days: 4.2% vs 8.3%; 31 days to 1 year: 52.6% vs 66.7%; >1 year: 43.2% vs 25.0%; P =0.28). Staphylococcus occurred more commonly after SAVR (58.3% vs 28.4% in TAVR; P =0.04). PVE was strongly associated with all-cause mortality after endocarditis diagnosis (hazard ratio, 4.4 [95% CI, 3.42–5.72]; P <0.0001). Conclusions: The widespread adoption of TAVR and application to lower-risk patients makes understanding mechanisms of valve failure increasingly important. PVE is an established mechanism of prosthetic valve failure post-SAVR and TAVR with unclear differences between approaches. We herein demonstrate in the largest trials and registries of TAVR that PVE remains rare, but often fatal, in modern AVR experience and that there is no difference in incidence, predictors, or risk of PVE between TAVR and SAVR. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT00530894 (PARTNER 1), NCT01314313 (PARTNER 1IA), NCT02184442 (PARTNER 1IB), NCT03222141 (PII S3HR), NCT03222128 (PII S3i).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations117
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207