MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Flow on Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

2021· article· en· W3190822021 on OpenAlexaff
Amr E. Abbas, Julien Ternacle, Philippe Pîbarot, Ke Xu, Maria Alu, Erin Rogers, Rebecca T. Hahn, Martin B. Leon, Vinod H. Thourani

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic valve replacementCardiologyOdds ratioValve replacementInternal medicineStroke (engine)ProsthesisAortic valveSurgeryStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207