MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041763021 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2497

Natural History of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis and the Association of Early Intervention With Outcomes

2020· review· en· W3041763021 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitta Gahl, Mevlüt Çelik, Stuart J. Head, Jean‐Louis Vanoverschelde, Philippe Pîbarot, Michael J. Reardon, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, A. Pieter Kappetein, Peter Jüni, Bruno R. da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversité Laval
FundersSt. Jude MedicalMedicines CompanyBoston Scientific CorporationEli Lilly and CompanyEdwards LifesciencesAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineNatural historyAsymptomaticStenosisInternal medicineIntervention (counseling)Aortic valve stenosisCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Whether intervention should be performed in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains debated. Objective: To meta-analyze the natural history of asymptomatic severe AS and examine the association of early intervention with survival. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to February 1, 2020. Study Selection: Observational studies of adult patients with asymptomatic severe AS. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently extracted study and patient characteristics, follow-up time, events, and prognostic indicators of events. Random-effects models were used to derive pooled estimates. Main Outcomes and Measures: The meta-analysis on natural history was performed on the primary end point of all-cause death occurring during a conservative treatment period, with secondary end points consisting of cardiac death, death due to heart failure, sudden death, development of symptoms, development of an indication for aortic valve intervention, and aortic valve intervention. The primary end point for the meta-analysis of early intervention vs a conservative strategy was all-cause death during long-term follow-up. Finally, meta-analysis was performed on the association of prognostic indicators with the composite of death or aortic valve intervention found in multivariable models. Results: A total of 29 studies with 4075 patients with 11 901 years of follow-up were included. Pooled rates per 100 patients per year were 4.8 (95% CI, 3.6-6.4) for all-cause death, 3.0 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) for cardiac death, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.3-3.1) for death due to heart failure, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.6-2.1) for sudden death, 18.1 (95% CI, 12.8-25.4) for an indication for aortic valve intervention, 18.5 (95% CI, 13.4-25.5) for development of symptoms, and 19.2 (95% CI, 15.5-23.8) for aortic valve intervention. Early intervention was associated with a significant reduction in long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58). Factors associated with worse prognosis were severity of AS, low-flow AS, left ventricular damage, and atherosclerotic risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Data from observational studies and a recent randomized clinical trial suggest that many patients with asymptomatic severe AS develop an indication for aortic valve intervention, and their deaths are mostly cardiac but not only sudden. Other end points besides sudden death should be considered during the decision to perform early intervention that are associated with improved survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA CardiologySame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207