MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

One-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial Comparing a Self-Expanding With a Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve

2021· letter· en· W3139103104 on OpenAlexaff
Won‐Keun Kim, Thomas Walther, Christof Burgdorf, Helge Möllmann, Axel Linke, Simon Redwood, Christian Thilo, Michael Hilker, Michael Joner, Hölger Thiele, Lars O. Conzelmann, Lenard Conradi, Sebastian Kerber, Gerhard Schymik, Bernard Prendergast, Oliver Hüsser, Johannes Blumenstein, Stefan Stortecky, Dik Heg, Arnaud Künzi, Peter Jüni, Stephan Windecker, Thomas Pilgrim, Jonas Lanz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBalloonRandomized controlled trialAortic valveSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COPE I (Safety and Efficacy of the Symetis ACURATE neo/TF Compared to the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Bioprosthesis) is an investigator-initiated randomized clinical trial comparing the self-expanding Acurate neo (NEO) with the balloonexpandable Sapien 3 (S3) bioprosthesis in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).At 30 days, TAVR with NEO did not meet noninferiority compared with S3 regarding the primary composite end point because of higher rates of prosthetic valve regurgitation (PVR) and acute kidney injury. 1 Here we report outcomes at 1 year.Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis deemed at increased surgical risk were recruited at 20 tertiary centers across Europe.Clinical endpoints were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee blinded to treatment allocation.Outcome rates at 1 year are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared by means of Cox proportional hazard models in the intention-to-treat cohort.Valve performance at follow-up was assessed by an independent echocardiography core laboratory and is reported for the valve implant cohort.Details concerning administrative structure, study design, and end point definitions have been reported. 1Study approval was obtained from institutional ethics committees at each site.The study is registered (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;Unique identifier: NCT03011346).The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.A total of 739 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to TAVR with NEO (n=372) or S3 (n=367) between February 2017 and 2019.One-year follow-up was available in 715 (96.8%) patients.Baseline characteristics have been previously reported. 1Major clinical outcome rates and hazard ratios comparing the 2 groups are depicted in the Figure .At 1 year, rates of all-cause death were 10.9% in the NEO and 8.3% in the S3 group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.81-2.10]).Disabling stroke occurred in 2.9% (NEO) and 1.7% (S3) at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.60-4.57]),and the composite of all-cause death and disabling stroke in 12.0% and 9.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.81-1.98]).At 1 year, the prevalence of moderate or severe PVR remained numerically higher in the NEO group (15/168 [8.9%] versus 6/165 [3.6%]; P=0.07), whereas mean transprosthetic gradients were lower (7.2±3.3 versus 11.5±5.4mm Hg; P<0.001).At 1 year, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed in the randomized comparison of the NEO and S3 in patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.The rate of PVR remained higher and transprosthetic mean gradients lower in NEO recipients from 30 days to 1-year follow-up.One-year death rates observed in SCOPE I are in the range of those previously reported for intermediate risk patients using newer generation devices. 2,3The numerically higher rate of all-cause death at 1 year in the NEO group partly results from periprocedural adverse events that occurred more frequently in the NEO group. 1 It may be difficult to ascribe longer-term mortality to specific transcatheter One-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial Comparing a Self-Expanding With a Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→