MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3107429563 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2614

Post TAVR coronary revascularization guided by stress cardiac imaging and impact on cardiovascular events

2020· article· en· W3107429563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benoît Lattuca, Elvira Prunet, Fabien Huet, Myriam Akodad, F. Manna, Jean Christophe Macia, Laurent Schmutz, Thomas Gandet, Guillaume Cayla, Florence Leclercq

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineValve replacementRevascularizationStenosisCoronary artery diseasePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionAortic valve stenosisCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyClinical endpointAnginaRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The prognostic impact of systematic revascularization of asymptomatic coronary artery stenosis before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is still debated Purpose The main objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of a functional evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD) followed by a selective ischemia-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after TAVR. Methods This prospective, bi-centric, one-arm, open-label trial included patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) eligible for TAVR and with significant CAD defined as one or more coronary stenosis ≥70%. Patients with left main stenosis ≥50%, proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) stenosis ≥90% or > class 2 Canadian cardiovascular society angina pectoris were excluded. Coronary revascularization was not performed before TAVR and myocardial ischemia was evaluated by stress cardiac imaging one month after the procedure using Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging or Stress Echocardiography using dobutamine infusion. The primary endpoint was the composite of all cause of death, stroke, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) ≥3), major vascular complication (Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria), myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization for cardiac causes at 6 months following TAVR. Results Between June 2016 and March 2019, 71 patients were included with a complete follow-up in 66 patients. The mean age was 84±5.2 years and the mean Euroscore was 13±8.6. Stress cardiac imaging could be achieved in 70% (n=46) of the patients and the main causes to not perform it were patient refusal or secondary impaired medical condition. Significant myocardial ischemia was observed in only 3 patients (4.5%), of whom 2 patients had successful PCI. The primary endpoint occurred at 6 months in 15 patients (23%) including death in 6 patients (9%), stroke in 3 patients (5%) and major bleedings in 3 patients (5%). Acute MI was observed in only 2 patients (3%) that had not-LAD proximal and severe coronary stenosis (≥90%). Hospital readmission (n=27, 41%) was mostly related to non-cardiac causes (n=18, 27%). Conclusions In patients scheduled to TAVR and with significant coronary disease, a strategy of selective ischemia-guided coronary revascularization after TAVR appears safe with a low rate of myocardial infarction and myocardial ischemia requiring revascularization during follow-up. However, the poor adherence of elderly patients to stress test could suggest to perform PCI of proximal and severe coronary lesions. Large-scale and randomized trials are warranted to validate this strategy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→