MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safe transition home after transcatheter aortic valve implantation feasibility (START-F) study: Very early self-reported function and recovery status after early discharge

2024· article· en· W4403808425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Lauck, Maggie Yu, Tinca J. C. Polderman, Candice Low, Amanda Smith, Emily K. Hyde, Britt Borregaard

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalMcMaster UniversityTrillium Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAortic valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite significant excellent outcomes and significant improvements in rapid recovery protocols and early discharge, rates of 30-day readmission after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain stubbornly high. There can be numerous drivers for readmission in older people with valvular heart disease; the time of transition home is the period of greatest risk when patients are most vulnerable to repeat hospitalization. We sought to assess patients’ early recovery (< post-procedure day 3) to inform the evaluation of a nurse-led telephone intervention to mitigate the risks of 30-day readmission after early (1 day) discharge TAVI. Methods We conducted a prospective observational cohort feasibility study in five Canadian TAVI programs to ascertain acceptability, compliance, delivery of the intervention, recruitment and retention. In this preliminary report, we assessed key indicators of patients’ status at the time of discharge and functional status in their early recovery. Results We recruited 188 participants, mean age 81.6 years (SD=7.0), 41.5% women with baseline mean KKCQ 53.4 (SD=20.1). Patients were admitted on the day of the procedure, and underwent TAVI with a balloon-expandable (n=146, 77.6%) or self-expanding (n=30, 16.0%) device, with local anaesthesia +/- light sedation (n=171, 90.1%) or general anaesthesia (n=17, 9.0%). There was 1 in-hospital death (0.5%) and 182 (97.4%) were discharged home. At the time of the 3-day telephone follow-up, 168 (95.5%) reported that an individual had stayed with them during the first 24 hours [spouse: 85 (48.9%); friend: 77 (44.3%)], and 165 (93.3%; missing: 11) were able to complete all activities of daily living, including cooking their own meals (n=80, 45.5%). Self-reported energy was low/very low for 49 participants (26.1%), moderate for 93 (52.8%), and high/very high for 34 (18.1%), with 104 (55.3%) describing feeling somewhat or quite a bit better than before TAVI, and 24 (12.8%) somewhat or quite a bit worse. Bruising was present in 120 participants (68.6%) and 137 (78.8%) had removed their bandage as instructed. 18 participants were readmitted within 30 days, including 14 cardiac-related events. Conclusion This is one of the first reports of TAVI patients’ self-reported function following next-day discharge, providing novel evidence that most patients describe safe self-care and very early improved functional status. Research is needed to identify and support patients who are at higher risk of poorer trajectories of recovery and readmission, and report the feasibility of a nurse-led intervention to mitigate these risks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→