Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation in clinical practice: A nationwide survey of cardiological implanting and non-implanting physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Implantation (TPVI), when feasible, is the first-line approach to pulmonary valve replacement. Our aim was to obtain a picture of current TPVI practice in Italy. Methods: After conducting a literature review on TPVI, online surveys were devised by an Advisory Board of 10 experts from the three Italian reference centers for congenital heart diseases and sent electronically to physicians working either in implanting center or in referral non-implanting cardiologic centers. Results: Approximately 450 physicians across Italy were invited to contribute. 82 (18%) physicians answered. EchoColorDoppler, electrocardiogram and cardiac magnetic resonance were considered the first line approach to monitor these patients, before and after TPVI.For non-implanting centers, reasons for non-referral of patients for PVR were: paucisymptomatic disease (67%) and patients' poor adherence to disease management programs (41%), but also the lack of connections with specialized centers (33%). For implanters, the main reasons for refraining from TPVI were: high risk for coronary compression (67% first rank), the need for concomitant cardiac surgical procedures (39% first rank) and the unsuitable anatomy of the conduit (39% first rank). The availability of new larger valves of a self-expandable nature was indicated as a key technological development for expanding the cohort of patients currently eligible for TPVI. Conclusions: Despite a non-invasive imaging protocol for the follow up and selection of patients candidate to TPVI is well implemented in Italy, there is still a lack in connections between non-implanting and implanting centers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".