Impact of Flow on Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is diagnosed by an indexed effective orifice area <0.65 cm 2 /m 2 , which is derived from stroke volume index. We examined the impact of flow, determined by stroke volume index, on severe PPM following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods: We included SAVR patients from the PARTNER 2A trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2A) and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 S3i (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 S3i) registry. The primary end point was the separate analysis of all-cause death, cardiac death, and rehospitalization at 5 years. Following TAVR and SAVR, we compared the primary end points between severe versus no-severe PPM in all patients, in low flow (LF), and in normal flow. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine variables associated with the end points. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four TAVR and 726 SAVR patients with PPM and flow data were included. Severe PPM following TAVR was significantly lower compared with SAVR in all patients (9% versus 28%, P <0.0001), in normal flow (5% versus 8%, P =0.04), and in LF (20% versus 42%, P <0.0001). Severe PPM was associated with rehospitalization following TAVR (odds ratio, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.01–2.29], P =0.0456) and SAVR (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.06–2.16], P =0.0237). Severe PPM in LF was independently associated with cardiac death following TAVR (odds ratio, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.06–3.23], P =0.0308). Following SAVR, severe PPM in LF and low ejection fraction was associated with increased cardiac death (35.26% versus 12.51%, P =0.01) and rehospitalization (37.59% versus 15.46%, P =0.006) compared with severe PPM in LF and preserved ejection fraction, respectively. Severe PPM in normal flow was not associated with clinical outcomes despite higher gradients and smaller valves compared with severe PPM in LF. Conclusions: Severe PPM is more common following SAVR compared with TAVR. Regardless of the implanted valve size or gradient, severe PPM impacts mortality only in patients with LF following TAVR and LF and low ejection fraction following SAVR. Severe PPM in normal flow is not associated with poor outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT01314313 and NCT02687035.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".