Interaction Between Balloon-Expandable Valves and Coronary Ostia: Angiographic Analysis and Impact on Coronary Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the position of balloon-expandable valves in relation to the coronary ostia using an angiographic- and computed tomography (CT)-based analysis, and to determine the impact of valve position on coronary angiography (CA)/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) feasibility and results. METHODS: A total of 533 patients who received a Sapien XT or Sapien 3 valve were included in the angiographic analysis. Of these, 49 benefited from an opportunistic electrocardiography-gated CT after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and were included in the CT analysis. RESULTS: Regarding the left coronary artery (LCA) ostium, the top of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) frame was infraostial in 49% of cases, and the valve totally covered the LCA ostium in 27% of patients. The stent frame of the Sapien 3 valve completely covered the LCA ostium more frequently than the Sapien XT valve (43% vs 12%, respectively; P<.001) and the relative implantation depth was significantly less ventricular in the Sapien 3 group than in the Sapien XT group (28.0 ± 12.3% vs 36.8 ± 12.6%, respectively; P<.001). The CT evaluation found similar results to angiographic evaluation. A total of 53 patients (10%) underwent CA (± PCI) following TAVR, and valve position did not influence CA performance/quality and PCI results. CONCLUSIONS: The stent frame of balloon-expandable Sapien valves exceeded the coronary ostia in about one-fourth of patients, and this percentage was >40% with the new-generation Sapien 3 valve. However, THV position did not affect the feasibility, quality, and results of CA/PCI post TAVR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".