612 Comparison of two self-expandable supra-annular bioprosthesis: a propensity score-matched analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Limited data reported the comparison of bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among devices of supra-annular design. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and Evolut R/PRO valves for TAVI in a propensity score-matched analysis (PSM). Methods and results We performed a propensity score-matched analysis equalizing almost all the patient’s risk factors, anatomical and procedural characteristics, and assessing the predictive value of the remaining features. Our data were derived from a large, real-world, contemporary, multicentre, international, retrospective registry of 3862 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI using two different self-expandable supra-annular valves (Medtronic Evolut R/PRO and Boston ACURATE neo). We reached a matched population of 713 couples for each device group with a medium follow-up of 456.5 days. In the comparison of the clinical outcomes between the Evolut and the ACURATE patients, no difference occurred in mortality (9.8% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.650), heart failure hospitalization (9.6% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.076), myocardial infarction (0.7% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.718), stroke (2.4% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.239), major bleeding (3.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 1.000), vascular complications (13.7% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.126), endocarditis (1.1% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.568), sepsis (0.9% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.605), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.605), and new left bundle branch block (17% vs. 13.5%, P = 0.187). The only outcome with a significant difference between the groups was the need of pacemaker implantation in favour of the ACURATE valve (5.3% vs. 12.9% for the Evolut, P < 0.001). Conclusions In our PSM cohort, the comparison between the Evolut and the ACURATE valve showed no significant differences in the multiple outcomes evaluated, except for the rate of new pacemaker implantation. This data confirmed the recent literature, but it needs further dedicated investigation using the following devices generations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".