MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403806677 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.135

Echocardiographic evaluation of right ventricle to pulmonary artery coupling in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4403806677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muammar Emir Ananta, Alya Darin Wijaya, Chiquita Febby Pragitara, Abdulaali R. Almutairi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricleCardiologyInternal medicinePulmonary arteryMeta-analysisAortic valvePulmonary valveAortaRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Right Ventricle to Pulmonary Artery (RV/PA) uncoupling, which depicts the inability of RV contractility to match the increasing RV afterload, has recently gained recognition as a simple echocardiography parameter to aid prognosis judgment in patients with RV dysfunction. In Aortic Stenosis (AS) patients, the extent of RV dysfunction and Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) has been linked with poor outcomes, but the prognostic value of RV/PA uncoupling in AS patients undergoing TAVI has not been well-defined. Purpose To investigate the prognostic value of RV/PA uncoupling and its association with echocardiographic parameters in AS patients undergoing TAVI. Methods We conducted a systematic search through Pubmed and Embase to include studies up to February 2024. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the prognostic performance of RV/PA uncoupling in AS patients undergoing TAVI. Random-effects model were employed to pool the adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) with inverse-variance weighting method or Relative Risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) using Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical outcomes or Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) for numerical outcomes. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results Thirteen studies were included. Out of 4,146 patients, 55.21% were reported to have RV-PA uncoupling prior to TAVI. RV/PA uncoupling was customarily assessed with TAPSE/PASP ratio, with threshold for uncoupling ranging between <0.31–<0.63 mm/mmHg. Follow-up period ranged between 6–65 months. Patients with baseline RV/PA uncoupling had lower LVEF (WMD -9.94% [-4.36– -15.53%]; I2 = 78%), lower TAPSE (WMD -4.98 mm [95% CI -1.15– -8.80]; I2 = 95%), and higher PASP (WMD 19.77 [95% CI 17.02–22.51]; I2 = 0%) compared to patients with RV/PA coupling at baseline. Baseline RV-PA uncoupling was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (pooled aHR = 2.26 (95% CI 1.36–3.76); I2 = 77%) and composite endpoint of mortality and adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (pooled aHR = 2.07 (1.30–3.29); I2 = 24%). However, RV/PA uncoupling was not significantly associated with a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI (pooled Risk Ratio 1.02 [0.70–1.47]; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Pre-procedural RV/PA uncoupling emerges as an independent predictor of worse prognosis in AS patients undergoing TAVI, contributing to a better understanding of the impact of this parameter on patient 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 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)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.019
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→