Current treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis in elderly patients: Do risk scores really matter after 80 years of age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the guidelines, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is recommended in patients at low surgical risk (EuroSCORE II<4%), whereas for other patients, the decision between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgery should be made by the Heart Team, with TAVI being favoured in elderly patients. AIM: The RAC prospective multicentre survey assessed the respective contributions of age and surgical risk scores in therapeutic decision making in elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. METHODS: In September and October 2016, 1049 consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years were included in 32 centres with on-site TAVI and surgical facilities. The primary endpoint was the decision between medical management, TAVI or SAVR. RESULTS: Mean age was 84±5 years and 53% of patients were female. The surgical risk was classified as high (EuroSCORE II>8%) in 18% of patients, intermediate (EuroSCORE II 4-8%) in 34% and low (EuroSCORE II≤4%) in 48%. TAVI was preferred in 71% of patients, SAVR in 19% and medical treatment in 10%. The choice of TAVI over SAVR was associated with older age (P<0.0001) and a higher EuroSCORE II (P=0.008). However, the weight of EuroSCORE II in therapeutic decision making markedly decreased after the age of 80 years. Indeed, 77% of patients aged ≥ 80 years were referred for TAVI, despite a low estimated surgical risk. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of risk scores depends strongly on age, and decreases considerably after 80 years, most patients being referred for TAVI, independent of their estimated surgical risk. Despite medical advancements, 10% of patients were still denied any intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".