MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282825560 · doi:10.1161/jaha.121.024707

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With and Without Resheathing and Repositioning: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4282825560 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Moroni, Lorenzo Azzalini, Lars Søndergaard, Guilherme F. Attizzani, Santiago García, Hani Jneid, Mamas A. Mamas, Rodrigo Bagur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCardiologyInternal medicineAortic valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is a concern that resheathing/repositioning of transcatheter heart valves during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may lead to an increased risk of periprocedural complications. We aimed to evaluate the short‐ and long‐term impact on clinical outcomes of resheathing for repositioning of transcatheter heart valves during TAVI procedures. Methods and Results We conducted a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify studies comparing outcomes between patients requiring resheathing/repositioning during TAVI and those who did not. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were used to estimate the association of resheathing compared with no resheathing with clinical outcomes after TAVI. Seven studies including 4501 participants (pooled mean age, 80.9±7.4 years; 54% women; and 1374 [30.5%] patients requiring resheathing/repositioning) were included in this study. No significant differences between the 2 groups were identified with regards to safety: 30‐day mortality (n=3125; odds ratio [OR], 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–1.33]; I 2 =0%), stroke (n=4121; OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.74–1.62]; I 2 =0%), coronary obstruction (n=3000; OR, 2.35 [95% CI, 0.17–33.47]; I 2 =75%), major vascular complications (n=3125; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.66–1.33]; I 2 =0%), major bleeding (n=3125; OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.94–2.01]; I 2 =39%), acute kidney injury (n=3495; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.64–2.62]; I 2 =44%), and efficacy outcomes: device success (n=1196; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.51–1.14]; I 2 =0%), need for a second valve (n=3170; OR, 2.86 [95% CI, 0.96–8.48]; I 2 =62%), significant (moderate or higher) paravalvular leak (n=1151; OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.83–2.80]; I 2 =0%), and permanent pacemaker implantation (n=1908; OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.68–1.57]; I 2 =58%). One‐year mortality was similar between groups (n=1972; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.68–1.47]; I 2 =0%). Conclusions Resheathing of transcatheter heart valves during TAVI is associated with similar periprocedural risk compared with no resheathing in several patient‐important outcomes. These data support the safety of current self‐expanding transcatheter heart valves with resheathing features. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42021273715.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→