MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306253287 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.129

Impact of recent 2021 ESC guideline changes on postoperative survival of patients with severe aortic regurgitation: insights from the AVIATOR registry

2022· article· en· W4306253287 on OpenAlexaff
V Hanet, David De Azevedo, Penny Krug, Hans‐Joachim Schäfers, Emmanuel Lansac, Laurent de Kerchove, Ismael El‐Hamamsy, Jan Vojáček, Monica Contino, Anne–Catherine Pouleur, Christophe Beauloye, Agnès Pasquet, Jean‐Louis Vanoverschelde, David Vancraeynest, Bernhard Gerber

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionBicuspid aortic valveVentricleHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyAortic valveRegurgitation (circulation)GuidelineAortic valve replacementSurgeryStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Until 2021, the strongest guidelines on surgical correction of severe aortic regurgitation (AR) focused on the left ventricular systolic function (LVEF) and the presence of symptoms. However, those situations lead to an outcome penalty, even after surgical correction. Left ventricle end-systolic diameter (LVESD) gained in strength in 2021 European guidelines. Moreover, more inclusive cut-off values are now recommended (class IIb) in patients at low surgical risk, reflecting the will to recommend surgery before developing heart failure and its consequences on post-operative outcome. Purpose We sought to evaluate the impact of guidelines triggers and their recent changes on postoperative survival of patients with severe AR from a large multicentric international registry. Method and results Postoperative overall survival of 1899 patients operated for severe and chronic AR (mean age 49±15 years, 85% male) in the international multicenter surgery registry for aortic valve surgery, AVIATOR, was evaluated over a median of 37 months. Twelve patients (0.6%) died postoperatively, and 68 within 10 years. By multivariable Cox analysis, presence of heart failure symptoms (HR 2.60; 95% CI [1.20–5.66]; p=0; 016), and either LVESD >50 mm or >25 mm/m2 (HR 1.64; 95% CI [1.05–2.55]; p=0.029) predicted survival independently over and above age (HR 2.25 per SD, 95% CI [1.67–3.03], p<0.001), female gender and bicuspid phenotype. Therefore, patients operated on when meeting either old or new 2021 class I triggers had worse adjusted survival (respectively 86±2% and 87±2%) than patients operated on without meeting triggers (97±2%, p<0.01). However asymptomatic patients operated on while meeting new 2021 ESC class IIb triggers (ie LVESD >20 mm/m2 or LVEF between 50–55%, 10-year survival 97±3%). Moreover, the sub-group of patients having a dilated LVESD >50 mm or >25 mm/m2 but a preserved LVEF >50% had excellent survival (10-year survival 95±3%). Conclusions In severe AR, patients operated on when meeting any class I trigger have postoperative survival penalty. Asymptomatic patients operated on earlier have better survival. This supports early surgery in AR as encouraged by the recent ESC/EACTS guidelines. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Fondation Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique of the Belgian Government

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→