The importance of the Heart Team evaluation before transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Results from the BRAVO‐3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Objectives Clinicians use validated scores to risk‐stratify patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, evaluation by the Heart Team often deems patients to be at higher risk than their formal scores suggest. We sought to assess clinical outcomes of TAVR patients defined as high‐risk by the Heart Team's assessment versus the patient's logistic EuroSCORE (LES). Methods The BRAVO‐3 trial randomized patients at high risk (LES ≥ 18, or deemed inoperable by the Heart Team) to TAVR with periprocedural anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin. Endpoints included net adverse cardiac events (NACE: the composite of all‐cause mortality, MI, stroke, or bleeding), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, MI, or stroke), the individual components of MACE, major vascular complications, BARC ≥ 3b bleeding and VARC life‐threatening bleeding at 30 days. We compared patients deemed high‐risk based on LES ≥ 18 versus high‐risk by the Heart Team despite lower LES. Results A total of 467/800 (58.4%) patients were deemed high‐risk by the Heart Team despite LES < 18. After multivariable analysis, there were no differences in the odds of endpoints between groups (NACE, OR LES≥18 : 1.32, 95% CI 0.86‐2.02, p = .21; MACE, OR LES≥18 : 1.27, 95% CI 0.72‐2.25, p = .41; major vascular complications, OR LES≥18 : 0.97, 95% CI 0.65‐1.44, p = .88; BARC ≥3b, OR LES≥18 : 1.38, 95% CI 0.82‐2.33, p = .23; and VARC life‐threatening bleeding, OR LES≥18 : 0.99, 95% CI 0.69‐1.41, p = .95). Conclusion Patients undergoing TAVR and labeled high‐risk by LES ≥ 18 or Heart Team assessment despite LES < 18 have comparable short‐term outcomes . Assignment of high‐risk status to over 50% of patients is attributable to Heart Team's clinical assessment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".