Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using the SAPIEN 3/Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valves—Expert Consensus on Procedural Planning and Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent guidelines on valvular heart disease in Europe and the United States have expanded the indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to younger patients and those at lower surgical risk with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Consequently, the number of TAVI procedures will significantly increase worldwide. Patients with longer life expectancies will outlive their transcatheter heart valves (THVs) and require established treatment strategies for re-intervention. Current data have shown encouraging outcomes, including low mortality, with redo-TAVI; in contrast, surgical explantation of THVs is associated with high mortality. Redo-TAVI, therefore, is likely to be the treatment of choice for THV failure. The expected increase in the number of redo-TAVIs stands in contrast to the current lack of evidence on how this procedure should be planned and performed, including the risks and pitfalls operators need to consider. Preliminary reports stress the importance of preprocedural planning, understanding of THV skirt and leaflet characteristics, and implantation guidelines specific to different THVs. Currently, SAPIEN 3/Ultra is the only THV approved in Europe and the United States for redo-TAVI. Therefore, we gathered a panel of experts in TAVI procedures with the aim of providing operative guidance on redo-TAVI, using the SAPIEN 3/Ultra THV. This consensus article presents a step-by-step approach encompassing clinical, anatomical, and technical aspects in preprocedural planning, procedural techniques, and postprocedural care. In conclusion, the recommendations aim to improve the feasibility, safety, and long-term outcomes of redo-TAVI, including the durability of implanted THVs.
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 | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".