MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195958575 · doi:10.1080/17434440.2021.1969915

Device profile of the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis: overview of its safety and efficacy

2021· review· en· W3195958575 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Alperi, Jules Mesnier, Vassili Panagides, Josep Rodés‐Cabau

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Medical Devices · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValve replacementStenosisHeart valveCardiologyAortic valve stenosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a treatment of reference for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra transcatheter heart valve systems are two of the most broadly used worldwide. Lately, TAVR has progressively expanded toward the treatment of low-risk patients. AREAS COVERED: In this review we aimed to describe the main characteristics of the SAPIEN 3 valve, and to delineate the main clinical findings regarding the safety and efficacy associated with this THV system in low-risk patients undergoing TAVR. EXPERT OPINION: The approval of THV systems for use in low-risk patients has been a significant step forward in expanding current TAVR indications. Along with procedural refinement and growing operator experience, device iterations implemented in new-generation THV systems have played a vital role in the successful spread of TAVR. The availability of SAPIEN 3 represented an inflection point, as it allows for a predictable positioning and safer navigability while dramatically decreasing the rate of residual paravalvular leakage compared to previous balloon-expandable systems. However, some unresolved issues remain like the relatively high rates of conduction disturbances and the uncertainty about valve performance in the long-term. Future studies are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Medical DevicesSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207