MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Discordance between symptomatic response and changes in cardiac structure and function one year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

2024· article· en· W4403837359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Constantijn S. Venema, Kees H. van Bergeijk, Luca H. Plekkenpol, Jasper Tromp, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Yoran M. Hummel, Jan A. Krikken, Hendrik W. van der Werf, Ad F.M. van den Heuvel, Yvonne L. Douglas, Eric Lipsic, Adriaan A. Voors, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAortic valveVentricular functionCardiac function curveHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Symptomatic improvement is one of the main goals of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. We hypothesized that the degree of symptomatic response after TAVI is associated with improvement in cardiac structure and function after TAVI. Purpose We aimed to evaluate 1) the change in symptomatic burden measured by New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) functional class after TAVI, 2) the change in echocardiographic structural and functional parameters after TAVI, and 3) the association of symptomatic response with echocardiographic response as well as long-term survival. Methods In patients undergoing TAVI, we assessed New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) functional class at 12 months. Symptomatic response was defined as NYHA/CCS class I or ≥ 1 improvement in NYHA/CCS class compared to baseline at 12 months. Echocardiographic images at baseline and 6-18 months post-TAVI were analysed using an automated, validated, deep-learning workflow. Logistic regression was used to assess association between change in echocardiographic parameters and symptomatic change at 12 months. The association of symptomatic response and echocardiographic changes in the first 12 months after TAVI with survival beyond 12 months, was evaluated by landmark analysis using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results Among 868 TAVI patients (median age 80 years, 53% female), the majority (74%) had NYHA/CCS class III at baseline and 77% of patients experienced improvement in symptoms at 12 months post-TAVI (Figure 1). Patients without an improvement in symptoms more often had COPD, atrial fibrillation and more heart failure medications compared to responders. Left ventricular systolic function did not show improvement compared to baseline, whereas a modest improvement in left atrial volume index, left ventricular mass index, E/A ratio, E/e’ ratio, mean e’ and tricuspid regurgitation peak jet velocity was observed. Symptomatic response was not associated with echocardiographic response. Beyond 12 months, patients with symptomatic improvement had lower mortality than those without symptomatic improvement (1.5 vs. 2.4 per 10 patient years; p = .001), whereas changes in echocardiographic parameters were not associated with subsequent mortality (Figure 2). Conclusion Patients undergoing TAVI for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, showed substantial symptomatic improvement at one year after the procedure, whereas only a modest improvement in echocardiographic parameters was observed. Improvement in symptoms was not associated with improvement in echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function. Symptomatic improvement, but not improvement in cardiac structure and function at 12 months, was a strong predictor of subsequent survival.Change in NYHA/CCS class after TAVISymptoms and echo versus mortality

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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