MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281564277 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.900469

Alcohol Septal Ablation or Septal Myectomy? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Septal Reduction Therapy for Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy

2022· review· en· W4281564277 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xifeng Zheng, Bin Yang, Bing Lü, Yinhui Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlcohol septal ablationSeptal myectomyMedicineObstructive cardiomyopathyCardiologyInternal medicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyHeart septumReduction (mathematics)Obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathyCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of alcohol septal ablation (ASA) and septal myectomy (SM) for the treatment of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Methods We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CBM databases for observational research articles related to ASA and SM published from the establishment of the databases to November 2021. All ultimate selected articles were highly related to our target. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the literature quality. A fixed or random effect model was performed in the meta-analysis depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. The Mantel-Haenszelt test with relative risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure the effect indicator of binary data, while the inverse variance method with weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI was used to measure the effect indicator of continuous data. Results A totally of 3,647 cases (1,555 cases treated with ASA and 2,092 cases treated with SM) were included. The results of the systematic review indicated no statistically significant difference in postoperative all-cause mortality (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.65–1.04; P = 0.10) between patients treated with ASA and SM, but both the reduction in the postoperative left ventricular outflow tract pressure gradient (WMD = 9.35 mmHg, 95% CI: 5.38–13.31, P < 0.00001) and the post-operative improvement on cardiac function, assessed by the grade of New York Heart Association (NYHA), compared to pre-operative measurements (WMD = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.00–0.26; P < 0.04) in the ASA group were slightly inferior to those in the SM group. In addition, both the risk of pacemaker implantation (RR = 2.83, 95% CI: 2.06–3.88; P < 0.00001) and the risk of reoperation (RR = 11.23, 95% CI: 6.21–20.31; P < 0.00001) are recorded at a higher level after ASA procedure. Conclusion Both ASA and SM have a high degree of safety, but the reduction in the postoperative left ventricular outflow tract pressure gradient and the improvement on cardiac function are slightly inferior to SM. In addition, both the risk of pacemaker implantation and the risk of reoperation are recorded at a higher level after ASA procedure. The operative plan should be chosen through multidisciplinary discussions in combination with the wishes of the patients and the actual clinical situation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207