MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14928: Coronary Artery Disease Impacts Cardiac Remodeling in Patients Treated for Severe Aortic Stenosis in the PARTNER Trials

2023· article· en· W4389958041 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa A. Daubert, Ke Xu, Rebecca T. Hahn, Philippe Pîbarot, Jonathon Leipsic, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Sammy Elmariah, Neil J. Weissman, Federico M. Asch, Omar Khalique, Martin B. Leon, Paul Cremer, Brian R. Lindman, Maria Alu, Pamela S. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseStenosisEjection fractionMyocardial infarctionRevascularizationHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), but the impact on cardiac remodeling and outcomes after AS treatment is unknown. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that greater CAD burden will be associated with less beneficial remodeling and increased adverse events. Methods: Patients with severe AS in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 1, 2 or 3 trials, with baseline and 1 year echoes, were categorized as: 1. Obstructive CAD (coronary stenosis ≥50% on invasive angiography, prior myocardial infarction (MI) or previous revascularization); or 2. Non-obstructive or no CAD (all stenosis <50% and no prior MI or revasc). Clinical and imaging characteristics were compared and changes in cardiac structure and function were assessed at 1 year. Associations between CAD, cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular (CV) events at 2 years were examined. Results: Among 5552 patients with severe AS, 1598 (28.8%) had non-obstructive or no CAD and were more likely to be female (67.1%), have fewer CAD risk factors, and receive SAVR (28% vs. 19%) compared to those with obstructive CAD (all p<0.0001). Despite lower LV mass index (LVMi), patients with non-obstructive or no CAD had higher aortic valve velocities, gradients, ejection fraction (EF) and stroke volume index compared to those with obstructive CAD. After 1 year, the decrease in LVMi was similar between groups (p=0.91), but patients with obstructive CAD were more likely to increase EF by ≥5% (p=0.006), reduce LV dimensions (p=0.04), or decrease mitral regurgitation (p=0.01). After adjustment for baseline factors and AS treatment, CV death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was higher among patients with obstructive CAD (HR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03-1.30, p=0.01). When LV remodeling at 1 year was also adjusted for, the point estimate was similar but there was no significant difference in the landmarked rate of CV death or HF hospitalization between year 1 and 2 (HR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.95-1.56, p=0.12). Conclusions: Nearly a third of patients with severe AS did not have obstructive CAD and had a better prognosis after treatment for AS. However, patients with obstructive CAD and LV remodeling were not at greater risk for CV events compared to those with non-obstructive or no CAD.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→