ESC/EACTS vs. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of severe aortic stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aortic stenosis (AS) is a serious and complex condition, for which optimal management continues to evolve rapidly. An understanding of current clinical practice guidelines is critical to effective patient care and shared decision-making. This state of the art review of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines and 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines compares their recommendations for AS based on the evidence to date. The European and American guidelines were generally congruent with the exception of three key distinctions. First, the European guidelines recommend intervening at a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55%, compared with 60% over serial imaging by the American guidelines for asymptomatic patients. Second, the European guidelines recommend a threshold of ≥65 years for surgical bioprosthesis, whereas the American guidelines employ multiple age categories, providing latitude for patient factors and preferences. Third, the guidelines endorse different age cut-offs for transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement, despite limited evidence. This review also discusses trends indicating a decreasing proportion of mechanical valve replacements. Finally, the review identifies gaps in the literature for areas including transcatheter aortic valve implantation in asymptomatic patients, the appropriateness of Ross procedures, concomitant coronary revascularization with aortic valve replacement, and bicuspid AS. To summarize, this state of the art review compares the latest European and American guidelines on the management of AS to highlight three areas of divergence: timing of intervention, valve selection, and surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement criteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.013 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".