Efficacy and Complications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With and Without Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an effective treatment for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Several complications related to the TAVI procedure, including aortic regurgitation (AR), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and the requirement for permanent pacemaker (PPM), are thought to be secondary to balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) before TAVI. The aim of the present review was to evaluate any beneficial role of the direct TAVI approach over BAVTAVI. METHODS: A comprehensive search of major databases was performed. Only studies comparing TAVI with and without BAV were included. A total of nine full length articles was included in the analysis. RESULTS: Among 2,650 patients, 1,043 underwent 'direct TAVI' without pre-BAV, while 1,607 underwent TAVI following BAV. Overall, there was no difference between the 30-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.63-1.47, p = 0.86), CVA (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.34-1.92, p = 0.63) and PPM implantation (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66- 1.05, p = 0.12) between the two approaches. The rate of moderate to severe AR was significantly lower with direct TAVI implantation (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.96, p = 0.04). In the case of self-expandable valves, direct TAVI was associated with a lower device success (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.33-19.9, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was identified in mortality between direct TAVI and BAV-TAVI. However, direct TAVI is associated with a lower incidence of AR, a finding that would only be confirmed by conducting further randomized studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".