Sex differences in the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with newer generation devices: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonable therapeutic approach among patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis irrespective of surgical risk. Data regarding sex-specific differences in the outcomes with newer generation valves are limited. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies assessing sex differences in the outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with newer generation valves (SAPIEN 3 or Evolut). Random effects model was constructed for summary estimates. RESULTS: Four observational studies with 4522 patients (44.8% women) were included in the meta-analysis. Women were older and had a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease and mean EuroScore. Women had a higher incidence of short-term mortality (up to 30 days) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-2.25), but no difference in 1-year mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.17). There was no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.86-1.57), permanent pacemaker (PPM) (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.62-1.04), or disabling stroke (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.54-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, we found that women undergoing TAVR with newer-generation devices were older but had a lower prevalence of comorbidities. Women had a higher incidence of short-term mortality but no difference in the 1-year mortality, bleeding, PPM, or stroke compared with men. Future studies are required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".