12‐Month outcomes of transcatheter tricuspid valve repair with the PASCAL system for severe tricuspid regurgitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the durability of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) reduction and the clinical outcomes through 12 months after transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVr) with the PASCAL Transcatheter Valve Repair System. BACKGROUND: TTVr has rapidly developed and demonstrated favorable acute outcomes, but longer follow-up data are needed. METHODS: Overall, 30 patients (age 77 ± 6 years; 57% female) received PASCAL implantation from September 2017 to May 2019 and completed a clinical follow-up at 12 months. RESULTS: The TR etiology was functional in 25 patients (83%), degenerative in three (10%), and mixed in two (7%). All patients had TR severe or greater (massive or torrential in 80%) and heart failure symptoms (90% in NYHA III or IV) under optimal medical treatment. Single-leaflet device attachment occurred in two patients. Moderate or less TR was achieved in 23/28 patients (82%) at 30 days, which was sustained at 12 months (86%). Two patients underwent repeat TTVr due to residual torrential TR (day 173) and recurrence of severe TR (day 280), respectively. One-year survival rate was 93%; 6 patients required rehospitalization due to acute heart failure. NYHA functional class I or II was achieved in 90% and 6-minute walk distance improved from 275 ± 122 m at baseline to 347 ± 112 m at 12-month (+72 ± 82 m, p < .01). There was no stroke, endocarditis, or device embolization during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-month outcomes from this multicenter compassionate use experience with the PASCAL System demonstrated high procedural success, acceptable safety, and significant clinical improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".