MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200404432 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/suab147.024

597 Comparison between low versus intermediate-high risk patients in a contemporary real-world multicentre TAVI registry using self-expanding supra-annular valves: a propensity score matched analysis

2021· article· en· W4200404432 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Sticchi, Francesco Gallo, Stefano Benenati, Kim Won-keun, Arif Khokhar, Tobias Zeus, Stefan Toggweiler, Federico De Marco, Bernhard Reimers, Luis Nombela‐Franco, Marco Barbanti, Salvatore Brugaletta, Tommaso Piva, J Rodés-Cabau, Italo Porto, Antonio Colombo, Francesco Giannini

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Supplements · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingInternal medicinePopulationMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)CardiologyTamponadeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Recent ESC VHD guidelines from 2021 recommend TAVI for intermediate-risk and in certain cases low-risk populations. There is relatively little data regarding the impact of transcatheter heart valve design in these populations. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of low-risk versus intermediate-high risk patients following TAVI in a large real-world contemporary registry. Methods In a large TAVI registry using self-expanding supra-annular bioprosthesis, we performed a comparison between low vs. intermediate-high risk population. Primary outcome was 1-year mortality and secondary outcomes, defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria, included major and minor vascular complications, annular rupture, myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, new permanent pacemaker, stroke, and major and minor bleeding. Finally, we assessed the same investigation applying a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis. Results In the unmatched comparison, the low-risk (LR) group included 1698 patients compared to the 1690 patients of the Intermediate-to-high risk group (IHR). The IHR population showed a mean age of 84 years old vs. 81 of the LR (P<0.001), a higher prevalence of male sex (41% vs. 30%, P<0.001) and increased prevalence of co-morbidities as evidenced by the higher mean STS score 5.80% vs. 2.63% (P<0.001). About the echocardiographic characteristics, the LR presented a higher mean gradient (45.9±15 mmHg vs. 43.7±16.8 mmHg, P<0.001) but similar area compared to the IHR group (0.7 [0.8–0.6] for LR and 0.7 (0.8–0.55) for IHR, P=0.096). In the first unmatched comparison, we found a higher rate of major vascular complications (5.4% vs. 7.3%, P=0.026), new permanent pacemaker (10.5% vs. 13.7%, P=0.006) and major bleeding (2.9% vs. 5.0%, P=0.002) for the IHR group. After the PSM, we obtained 1015 matched patients observing similar outcomes except for minor vascular complications (7.4% vs. 11%, P=0.014) for the IHR group. At a median follow-up of 368 days, the mortality rate was 12.2% (104/1559) vs. 6.8% (104/1520) for the un-matched populations (P<0.001), and 10.4% (98/940) vs. 7.9% (71/898) for the matched patients (P=0.100), respectively for the IHR and the LR group. Conclusions In this large, contemporary real-world registry of TAVI patients, there was no difference in mortality observed between LR and IHR populations at a 1-year follow-up. This data suggests that additional factors beyond surgical risk scores should be considered during heart team evaluation of patients with severe aortic stenosis towards a single-patient tailored approach.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal SupplementsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207