Response by Pibarot et al to Letter Regarding Article, “Echocardiographic Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: The PARTNER 3 Trial”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Response:We thank Loardi and Zanobini, Pollari et al, and Useini and Strauch for their interest in and comments regarding our article reporting echocardiographic data of the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). 1 There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that, as opposed to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with a deterioration in right ventricular (RV) function, which may contribute to the worse clinical outcomes observed with SAVR versus TAVR in the population with low surgical risk of the PARTNER 3 trial.Consistent with these results, an analysis of the PARTNER 2A trial also revealed that worsening of RV function occurs 3-fold more frequently after SAVR versus TAVR in the intermediate-risk population and is associated with a 2.87-fold increase in mortality.2 As discussed in our article, the causes of the deterioration of RV function and of tricuspid regurgitation after SAVR are likely multifactorial, including potential detrimental effects of pericardiectomy and of cardiopulmonary bypass.We disagree with the concept suggested in some previous studies that the deterioration in RV longitudinal systolic function and thus of tricuspid annulus plane excursion observed after SAVR does not indicate a true deterioration in RV function and has no functional or clinical consequences.The marked deterioration of tricuspid annulus plane excursion that occurred from baseline to 30 days in the SAVR arm of the PARTNER 3 trial was paralleled by a worsening of tricuspid regurgitation and was strongly and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes, substantiating the clinical relevance of this finding.Valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) is not solely a measure of bioprosthetic valve function but also integrates left ventricular (LV) outflow and arterial hemodynamics.Hence, Zva has the advantage of providing a more comprehensive assessment of the effect of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on the overall performance of the ventriculo-valvulo-arterial system.This measure reflects the overall energy cost (expressed in mm Hg) per milliliter of blood (indexed to body size) ejected by the heart.The results of the PARTNER 3 trial suggest that TAVR is associated with greater reduction in Zva and thus in LV energy cost compared with SAVR.However, Zva has limitations, including the fact that it is, as are all other echocardiographic measures of valve function, flow-dependent, and it is subject to measurement variability given that its formula includes 3 echocardiographic measures.The fact that the change in stroke volume does not parallel the change in LV ejection fraction after AVR is not surprising.Besides LV systolic function, several other factors may contribute to the increase in LV stroke volume after AVR, including the regression of LV concentric hypertrophy or remodeling, improvement in LV diastolic function and filling, and regression of mitral regurgitation and tricuspid regurgitation. 3 These factors may have contributed to the higher increase in stroke volume observed
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".