Percutaneous paravalvular leak closure after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the international PLUGinTAVI Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data regarding the safety and long-term effectiveness of percutaneous closure of paravalvular leak (PVL) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are scarce. AIMS: This study aims to present a large multicentre international experience of percutaneous post-TAVI PVL closure. METHODS: All patients who underwent percutaneous post-TAVI PVL closure in 14 hospitals across Europe and North America between January 2018 and October 2022 were included. RESULTS: Overall, 45 patients (64% male) were enrolled. The median age was 80 years (75-84). Among them, 67% and 33% had self-expanding and balloon-expandable valve implantations, respectively. Baseline post-TAVI PVL was severe in 67% of cases and moderate in the rest. The time from index TAVI to PVL closure procedure was 16.1 (8.7-34.8) months. Most patients were in NYHA Class III and IV (73%) before the procedure, and 40% had referred hospitalisations for heart failure between TAVI and the PVL closure procedure. Successful PVL closure was achieved in 94%, reducing regurgitation to ≤mild in 91% and moderate in the rest. The Amplatzer Valvular Plug III was the most frequently used device (27 cases), followed by the Amplatzer Valvular Plug 4. The incidence of severe adverse events was 11%. None of the patients died during the index hospitalisation. During long-term follow-up (21.7±16.2 months), the all-cause mortality rate was 14%, and patients presented improvement in functional status and a significant reduction in the rate of hospitalisation for heart failure (from 40% to 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous PVL closure is a feasible and safe option for treating post-TAVI leaks. Successful PVL reduction to mild or less could be associated with acute and long-lasting improvements in clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".