MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal Trends and Contemporary Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Evolut PRO/PRO+ Self-Expanding Valves: Insights From the NEOPRO/NEOPRO-2 Registries

2023· article· en· W4317360537 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Scotti, Sara Baggio, Matteo Pagnesi, Marco Barbanti, Marianna Adamo, Amnon Eitan, Rodrigo Estévez‐Loureiro, Verena Veulemans, Stefan Toggweiler, Darren Mylotte, Federico De Marco, Francesco Giannini, Marco Ferlini, Christoph Naber, Andrea Buono, Joachim Schöfer, Wolfgang Rottbauer, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Saib Khogali, Maurizio Taramasso, Thomas Pilgrim, Jan‐Malte Sinning, David Zweiker, Matteo Montorfano, Jan A.S. Van der Heyden, Salvatore Brugaletta, Alfonso Ielasi, Christian W. Hamm, Maarten Vanhaverbeke, Giuliano Costa, Mauro Massussi, Robert Alarcón Cedeño, Tobias Zeus, Mattia Lunardi, Luca Testa, Luca Di Ienno, Giuseppe Lanzillo, Alexander Wolf, Diego Maffeo, Francesca Ziviello, Matteo Saccocci, Stephan Windecker, Alexander Sedaghat, Albrecht Schmidt, Jorn Brouwer, Ander Regueiro, Bernhard Reimers, Won‐Keun Kim, Lars Søndergaard, Antonio Colombo, Antonio Mangieri, Azeem Latib

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValve replacementQuartileCardiologyInternal medicineAortic valveMulticenter studySurgeryConfidence intervalStenosisRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves. Methods: This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. Results: In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1–4, 4.1% [2.8–6.3%], 3.7% [2.6–5.3%], 3.3% [2.4–4.9%], 2.9% [2.2–4.3%]; P <0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1–4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P =0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1–4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and early safety (Q1–4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1–4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1–4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001). Conclusions: TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207