The hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable aortic bioprostheses in the elderly: a comparison between rapid deployment and transcatheter implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid deployment valve (RDV) is a relatively recent treatment option. The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable (BE)-RDVs and BE-transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in a high surgical risk and frail-elderly population. METHODS: BE-THVs and BE-RDVs were implanted in 138 and 47 patients, respectively, all older than 75 years and with a Canadian Study of Health and Aging category of 5 or above. Echocardiographic assessment was performed at discharge and six months later. RESULTS: ; p < 0.001). Similar findings were also shown considering only small-sized valves. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage was more prevalent in BE-THVs at discharge (14.49 vs. 0.00%; p = 0.032) and, considering exclusively small prostheses, at six months too (57.69 vs. 15.00%; p = 0.014). Nevertheless, BE-THVs determined amelioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (53.79 vs. 60.14%; p < 0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (35.81 vs. 33.15 mmHg; p = 0.042), and tricuspid regurgitation severity (40.58 vs. 19.57%; p = 0.031), from discharge to mid-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: BE-RDVs showed better hemodynamic performance, especially when implanted in small annuli. Despite their worse baseline conditions, transcatheter patients still exhibited a greater improvement of their echocardiographic profile at mid-term follow-up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".