Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with underlying interstitial lung disease (ILD) who undergo cardiac surgery are at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. It remains unclear if transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers any benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in ILD patients with severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: All adult patients with a diagnosis of ILD who underwent either a TAVR or isolated SAVR between January 2002 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Operative mortality, 30-day readmissions, and adjusted 1-year survival were compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The overall cohort included 52 TAVR and 74 SAVR patients. While TAVR patients were significantly older (77.2 vs 72.9 years) with higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS-PROM) scores compared with SAVR patients (6.29 vs 4.49; all P < .02), operative mortality was similar (5.8% vs 4.1%; P = .45). Rates of postoperative stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, reintubation, and 30-day readmissions did not differ between the two groups (all P > .46). However, TAVR was associated with significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, shorter ventilation times, and less requirement for ICU admission (all P < .05). Thirty-day readmissions and adjusted 1-year survival were also similar between the two groups (hazard ratio for TAVR vs SAVR = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.7-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Among ILD patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with comparable operative and risk-adjusted 1-year survival to SAVR. TAVR patients also had shorter ventilator times, ICU and hospital stay despite being at higher risk. Together, our findings suggest that TAVR may be a better option in this unique cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".