Two-year outcomes from the PARTNER 3 trial: where do we stand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The PARTNER 3 trial was conducted to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a balloon-expandable valve and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in individuals at low surgical risk with aortic stenosis. Recently reported rates of death, stoke and valve thrombosis in the TAVR arm have raised concerns about the longevity of this intervention in low-risk individuals. It is incumbent on all members of the Heart Team to understand the potential consequences of these findings. RECENT FINDINGS: TAVR was initially superior to SAVR at 1 year for a primary composite endpoint of death, stroke and rehospitalization. Results at 2 years now indicate noninferiority. Potential causative factors, comparisons with other transcatheter valves and implications for patients, providers and trainees are explored. Recommendations are additionally provided regarding TAVR and SAVR in individuals with aortic stenosis. SUMMARY: Concerns regarding the longevity of TAVR in low-risk individuals notwithstanding, results from PARTNER 3 indicate that TAVR is at least noninferior to SAVR out to 2 years. Longer follow-up will be required to determine whether these newly founded concerns are justifiable.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".