TIME-TO-EVENT ANALYSIS OF MORTALITY AND STROKE IN TRIALS COMPARING TRANS-CATHETER AND SURGICAL AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION WITH DIFFERENT RISK PROFILES.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We compared the effectiveness of TAVI versus SAVR on a composite of death or stroke at 5-year follow-up within high, intermediate and low-risk profiles. Methods: From January 2007 to January 2024, we performed a systematic review of literature including randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI or SAVR with a minimum 1-year follow-up and reporting Kaplan-Meier analysis. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or stroke. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences within high, intermediate and low-risk profiles were estimated by reconstructing time-to-event data. Results: Seven trials were included (8418 participants). The incidence of composite endpoints increased with higher baseline risk profiles for both treatments. A time-variant effect was present with an early superiority of TAVI, as supported by a cumulative additional time-to-event of 0.73 months at 4 years driven by the high-risk group. The benefit of TAVI increased over time up to 5 years in high-risk patients (RMST difference 2.495. 95%CI: -0.019; 5.01. P-value 0.05). In intermediate and low-risk patients it showed a quadratic association with a smaller increase and attenuation of the observed benefit after 60 months (Low risk 0.813, 95%CI -0.177 1.802; p-value 0.107. Intermediate risk 0.076, 95%CI -1.131 1.282, p-value 0.902). Conclusions: In RCTs comparing TAVI vs SAVR, the benefits of TAVI differ according to the patient’s risk category. The advantage of TAVI over surgery progressively increases up to 5 years in high-risk patients. At 5 years in low and intermediate-risk there are no significant observed benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".