MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13341: Systolic Time Intervals and Alternative Echocardiographic Parameters to Evaluate Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Function

2020· article· en· W3162094679 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Caron, Philippe Pîbarot, Anne‐Sophie Zenses

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAortic valve replacementAortic valveBody surface areaHemodynamicsReproducibilityStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bioprosthesis (BP) used for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in aortic valve disease are subject to structural valve deterioration (SVD) after 20 years or less which leads to reintervention. The diagnostic of SVD can be challenging in the presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) which occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the BP is too small for the metabolic needs of a patient. Both SVD and PPM are mainly diagnosed with echocardiography and are characterized by high transprosthetic mean and peak pressure gradients (MG and PG) and maximal velocity (Vmax) as well as reduced EOA. Easily accessible parameters are needed to distinguish SVD from PPM. Acceleration time (AT), ejection time (ET) and AT/ET have been proposed as accurate to identify SVD in presence of PPM. However, these parameters need to be validated. Objectives: The main goal of the present study is to determine the accuracy of AT and AT/ET and to validate new echocardiographic parameters that can distinguish SVD from PPM. New parameters proposed for this study are MG/EOA and PG over mean flow rate (PG/MFR). Methods: In a retrospective study, we analyzed echocardiographic data of 653 patients who underwent AVR. PPM was defined as a projected EOA to body surface area inferior to 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 . SVD was defined using a multiparametric integrative approach including morphological (fibrocalcific remodeling, thickening and stiffening of valve leaflets) criteria and hemodynamic changes according to American Society of Echocardiography/European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging recommendations. Results: EOA was lower and MG higher for patients with SVD compared to those with pure PPM. PG/Q and MG/EOA were significantly higher in patients with SVD compared to patients presenting pure PPM (PG/MFR: 0.22 mm Hg/ml/s ± 0.01 vs 0.15 mm Hg/ml/s ± 0.01; MG/EOA: 31 mm Hg/cm 2 ±2 vs 16 mm Hg/cm 2 ±2, p<0.001) respectively. ROC analysis showed that PG/Q and MG/EOA were the best echocardiographic parameters to distinguish pure PPM from SVD with AUC of 0.872 and 0.876 respectively. AT and AT/ET achieved AUC of 0.682 and 0.663. Conclusion: AT and AT/ET are not accurate parameters to identify SVD in presence of PPM. MG/EOA and PG/MFR represent interesting alternatives to conventional parameters.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→