Five-year comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of pure aortic stenosis with pure aortic regurgitation or mixed aortic valve disease in the COMMENCE trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with pure aortic stenosis (Pure AS) and those with pure aortic regurgitation (Pure AR) or mixed AS and AR (MAVD) in the COMMENCE trial. Methods Of 689 patients who underwent AVR in the COMMENCE trial, patients with moderate or severe AR with or without AS (Pure AR + MAVD; n = 135) or Pure AS (n = 323) were included. Inverse probability of treatment weighting Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used for time-to-event endpoints, and longitudinal changes in hemodynamics were evaluated using mixed-effects models. Echocardiographic outcomes were assessed by an echo core laboratory and clinical outcomes adjudicated by a clinical events committee. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.3 ± 2.2 years. Results At 5 years, adjusted safety endpoints were not statistically different between groups; no structural valve deterioration (SVD) event occurred in either group. After adjustment, the Pure AR + MAVD group had a greater change in body surface area–corrected left ventricular (LV) mass reduction ( P = .03) compared to the Pure AS patients. Those patients with a baseline LV ejection fraction (LVEF) >55% continued to demonstrate preserved contractility compared to patients with an LVEF ≤55% at baseline ( P < .0001). No significant difference in mean gradient ( P = .07) or effective orifice area ( P = .96) at 5 years was evident between the groups. Conclusions Patients with Pure AR + MAVD demonstrated similar clinical safety and freedom from SVD at 5 years compared to those with Pure AS. There was a significant difference in LV reverse remodeling in the Pure AR + MAVD group compared to the Pure AS group at 5 years. These favorable outcomes in patients with AR may reinforce the need for treatment before irreversible changes occur.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".