Cognitive dysfunction among patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and clinical impact at 6 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Detection of Cognitive Dysfunction (CD) is not routinely performed among patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). We sought to determine whether CD has an impact on the clinical course of these patients, during hospitalization at the time of TAVI and up to 6 months afterwards. Methods The MoCA was performed before TAVI by an experienced operator in an unselected population of patients referred for TAVI. CD was defined according to the MoCA score: No CD if score ≥26, mild CD if score 18–25, moderate if 10–17 and severe if <10. Multivariate Cox logistic regression analysis was used to determine the impact of CD on procedural success of TAVI, length of stay, 6 month survival, re-admission, and change in clinical status (changes in NYHA class and/or functional status). Results MoCA was performed in 83 consecutive patients. TAVI was performed using femoral access and local anesthesia in all patients. There were no procedural deaths, and 2 deaths at 6 months. The median age was 85 years, and median Euroscore I was 11.62. The median MOCA score was 22, CD was excluded in 17 (20%), mild in 50 (60%), moderate in 15 (18%) and severe in one patient. No difference was observed in rate of procedural success, 6 month mortality, re-admission, degree of dyspnea by NYHA between the different cognitive groups. Length of stay after the TAVI procedure was lower in patients without CD, compared to those with CD at any level: 3±1 days versus 4.3±1 days, p=0.045, and p=0.02 by multivariate analysis (figure). Conclusion Among patients referred for TAVI, mild or moderate CD was observed in 80% of patients. Patients without CD had a shorter length of stay at the time of TAVI, but CD was not associated with worse prognosis or clinical status at 6 months. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".