595 Impact of age on outcomes in a large multicentre low-to-intermediate risk TAVI population: in and out the age cut-off from ESC 2021 valvular heart disease guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims The ESC 2021 valvular heart disease [VHD] guidelines introduced an important and debated age cut-off (75 years) to lead the choice between surgical and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in non-high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate what impact an age cut-off has on clinical outcomes following TAVI in low-to-Intermediate Risk patients from a real word registry. Methods We performed the investigation in a large, contemporary, real-world, multicentre, international, retrospective registry of 3862 consecutive patients, comparing the rates of patient risk factors, procedural characteristics, complications, and outcomes in the populations with < or ≥ 75 years old. Results In our real-world cohort of 2977 patients with mean STS score of 3.6% (5.0–2.5), we found 301 (10.1%) patients with age <75 years and 2676 (89.9%) with ≥75 years. In the younger group compared with the older, we have a higher prevalence of male (44% vs. 35%, P=0.003), higher BMI (mean of 28.5 kg/m² vs. 26.7 kg/m², P = <0.001), diabetes (32% vs. 26%, P=0.027), insulin-dependent diabetes (12% vs. 7%, P=0.001), smoking (18% vs. 7%, P<0.001), COPD (26% vs. 16%, P<0.001). Moreover, younger patients presented less previous PM/ICD (6% vs. 11%, P=0.023), less atrial fibrillation (24% vs. 33%, P=0.033), less renal impairment (30% vs. 66%, P<0.001) and a lower mean STS score (2.6% vs. 3.7%, P<0.001). There was no difference in annular sizing, valvular and LVOT calcifications between the two groups. Older patients had a higher prevalence of porcelain aorta (2% for age<75 vs. 9%, P=0.001). Between the two groups no significant differences in procedural characteristics were observed, including rates of pre-dilatation (P=0.369), post-dilatation (P=0.159) and contrast volume (P=0.259). Procedural complications, in-hospital outcomes and 2-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival was equivalent between both groups (P=0.930). Finally, we assessed the best age cut-off related to 1-year mortality in our population, resulting in 86 years. Still, also in this scenario, the KM survival analysis did not show significant differences (P=0.120). Conclusions In our large real-world contemporary low-to-intermediate risk TAVI population, an age cut-off of 75 years was not associated with any difference in clinical outcomes and survival at 2-years follow-up. This data reinforces the concept that age alone is not a sufficient variable to be considered when choosing between TAVI or SAVR. The recent ESC 2021 VHD guidelines cut-off is justified only by the lack of evidence and valve durability strategy but not of a proper advantage age-related.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".