Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With vs Without a Preoperative Heart Team Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study sought to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after being referred to a heart team (HT), to those of patients referred directly for SAVR. Methods: An analysis of patients who underwent SAVR from 2015 to 2020 was conducted. Patients were categorized into 3 groups, as follows: (i) H-HT: patients referred to the HT from 2015 to 2017 (historical cohort); (ii) C-HT: patients referred to the HT from 2018 to 2020 (contemporary cohort); and (iii) No-HT: patients referred directly to cardiac surgery from 2018 to 2020. Two subanalyses were performed: H-HT vs C-HT patients, and C-HT vs No-HT patients. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, prolonged intubation, reoperation, sternal wound infection, and stroke. Results: This study consisted of 288 patients, distributed as follows: H-HT (n 45); C-HT (n 51); and No-HT (n 192). The mean ages of H-HT, C-HT, and No-HT patients was 76.3 AE 6.9 years, 73.3 AE 7.6 years, and 69.6 AE 9.7 years, respectively (P 0.0001). H-HT, C-HT, and No-HT patients had average Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores of 4.8 AE 2.2, 3.2 AE 1.6, and 4.2 AE 2 (P 0.002), respectively. The composite outcome rate was more than 5 times higher among H-HT patients compared to that among the C-HT patients (20.0 vs 3.9%, P 0.02), and was numerically higher in No-HT compared to C-HT patients (13.0 vs 3.9%, P 0.07). Conclusions: Referral to an HT appears to be primarily driven by higher chronological age rather than overall risk profile. Patients assessed by the HT prior to undergoing SAVR have a low incidence of complications, comparable to that among patients referred directly to cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".