MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome of Flow-Gradient Patterns of Aortic Stenosis After Aortic Valve Replacement

2020· article· en· W3042551812 on OpenAlexaff
Erwan Salaün, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Rebecca T. Hahn, Wael A. Jaber, Federico M. Asch, Leonardo Rodríguez, Neil J. Weissman, Zachary M. Gertz, Howard C. Herrmann, Abdellaziz Dahou, Mohamed‐Salah Annabi, Oumhani Toubal, Mathieu Bernier, Jonathan Beaudoin, Jonathon Leipsic, Philipp Blanke, Carine Ridard, Géraldine Ong, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, John G. Webb, Yiran Zhang, Maria Alu, Pamela S. Douglas, Raj Makkar, D. Craig Miller, Brian R. Lindman, Vinod H. Thourani, Martin B. Leon, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSt. Paul's HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionStenosisAortic valve replacementStroke volumeAortic valveAortic valve stenosisStroke (engine)Heart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major benefit in high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS), the results in low-gradient (LG, mean gradient <40 mm Hg) AS are conflicting. LG severe AS may be subdivided in classical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) and LG (CLF-LG); paradoxical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% but stroke volume index <35 mL/m 2 ) and LG; and normal-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and stroke volume index ≥35 mL/m 2 ) and LG. The primary objective is to determine in the PARTNER 2 trial (The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups. Methods: A total of 3511 patients from the PARTNER 2 Cohort A randomized trial (n=1910) and SAPIEN 3 registry (n=1601) were included. The flow-gradient pattern was determined at baseline transthoracic echocardiography and classified as follows: (1) HG; (2) CLF-LG; (3) paradoxical low-flow-LG; and (4) normal-flow-LG. The primary end point for this analysis was the composite of (1) death; (2) rehospitalization for heart failure symptoms and valve prosthesis complication; or (3) stroke. Results: The distribution was HG, 2229 patients (63.5%); CLF-LG, 689 patients (19.6%); paradoxical low-flow-LG, 247 patients (7.0%); and normal-flow-LG, 346 patients (9.9%). The 2-year rate of primary end point was higher in CLF-LG (38.8%) versus HG: 31.8% ( P =0.002) and normal-flow-LG: 32.1% ( P =0.05) but was not statistically different from paradoxical low-flow-LG: 33.6% ( P =0.18). There was no significant difference in the 2-year rates of clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within each flow-gradient group. Conclusions: The LG AS pattern was highly prevalent (36.5%) in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. CLF-LG was the most common pattern of LG AS and was associated with higher rates of death, rehospitalization, or stroke at 2 years compared with the HG group. Clinical outcomes were as good in the LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations40
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207