Abstract 16958: Comparison of Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes Between Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Transcatheter Valve in Valve in Patient With Failed Aortic Bioprostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery (REDO) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, there are few studies comparing clinical and hemodynamic outcomes between REDO and ViV in both the short- and long- term follow-up. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between REDO and ViV. Methods: A total of 184 patients who underwent REDO or ViV at our institution between 2003 and 2017 were included in this study. Clinical and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) data were collected for each patient. TTE was performed prior and after the reintervention and were retrospectively analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory. An inverse propensity treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to compare outcomes between groups. Results: 104 patients underwent REDO and 80 underwent ViV. Prevalence of suboptimal valve hemodynamics (mean gradient ≥ 20 mmHg and/or ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation) following reintervention was higher in ViV group (29.8% vs. 61.3%, p<0.001), the rate of novel permanent pacemaker tended to be higher with REDO (10.6% vs. 3.8%, p=0.08). During a median follow-up of 5.0 (3.7-7.5) years, 60 patients died. There was a trend toward higher rate of 30-day mortality in the REDO vs. ViV group (8.6% vs. 2.5%, OR [95% CI]: 3.70[0.77-17.6], p=0.10) and a trend toward lower risk of long-term mortality in REDO (HR [95% CI]: 0.61[0.33-1.14], p=0.12). In multivariate cox proportional analysis adjusted for age, sex, EuroSCORE 2, ViV was significantly associated with increased risk of long-term mortality (HR [95% CI]: 2.28[1.25-4.15], p=0.03). Results were confirmed in IPTW analyses (30-day mortality in REDO vs. ViV: 3.39[3.25-3.53], p<0.001; long-term mortality: 0.70[0.69-0.71], p<0.001). Conclusions: ViV was associated with lower risk of 30-day but higher risk of long-term mortality compared to REDO.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".