Timing and evolution of advanced conduction disturbances in patients with right bundle branch block undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study sought to determine the timing and evolution over time of advanced conduction disturbances (CDs) in patients with baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and ten consecutive patients with pre-existing RBBB were included (out of 1341, 8.2%). All arrhythmias during the hospitalization period were recorded. Follow-up was performed at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter. Conduction recovery and ventricular pacing percentage (VPP) was evaluated at 30 days in those patients with permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). Sixty-one (55.5%) patients suffered advanced CDs [97% complete or high-degree atrioventricular block (CHB/HAVB)], and the vast majority (98%) occurred within the first 3 days post-procedure (intraprocedural: 85%). Fifty-two (47.3%) patients had PPMI (vs. 11.0% in non-RBBB patients, P < 0.001). Ventricular pacing percentage at 1 month was higher in patients with persistent-intraprocedural CHB/HAVB compared to those with transient-intraprocedural or post-procedural CHB/HAVB [99 (interquartile range, IQR 97-100)% vs. 72 (IQR 30-99)%, P = 0.02]. Complete recovery (VPP < 1%) was observed in only one patient (2%) with CHB/HAVB. After hospital discharge, no symptomatic bradyarrhythmias or sudden death occurred within 30 days. Patients with pre-existing RBBB exhibited a higher risk of PPMI at 4-year follow-up (26% vs. 8% in non-RBBB patients, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with pre-existing RBBB, the vast majority of advanced CDs occurred within the 3 days following TAVR, and most did not recover at 1-month, particularly those with intra-procedural persistent CHB/HAVB. These results should help to determine the hospitalization length and timing of PPMI in RBBB patients undergoing 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".