MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405805211 · doi:10.1016/j.shj.2024.100392

The Prognostic Relevance of a New Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4405805211 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Heart · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilHeart Research Australia
KeywordsCardiologyMeta-analysisInternal medicineMedicineLeft bundle branch blockBlock (permutation group theory)MathematicsHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background</h3> Interference with the cardiac conduction system is common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), manifesting as atrioventricular block, or more commonly, new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB). Bundle branch block results in ventricular dyssynchrony and reduced cardiac output and may be associated with a poorer prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the prognostic impact of a left or right bundle branch block after TAVI. <h3>Methods</h3> A systematic review was performed of the following online databases: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, including English language studies from 2014 to 2024. Two separate searches for conducted for NOP-LBBB and new-onset persistent right bundle branch block (NOP-RBBB). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate risk of bias. <h3>Results</h3> Twenty-three studies totaling 18875 patients were included for NOP-LBBB, whilst 5 studies with a total of 3525 patients were included for NOP-RBBB. NOP-LBBB was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 1 year (risk ratio [RR] 1.41 [95% CI 1.12-1.78], I<sup>2</sup> = 49%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.02-1.75], I<sup>2</sup> = 60%, <i>p</i> = 0.02), heart failure-related rehospitalization (RR 1.56 [95% CI 1.31-1.84], I<sup>2</sup> = 47%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and permanent pacemaker implantation at 1 year (RR 3.05 [95% CI 2.39-3.89], I<sup>2</sup> = 14%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). NOP-RBBB was not associated with higher all-cause mortality at 1 year (RR 1.74 [95% CI 0.88-3.46], I<sup>2</sup> = 93%, <i>p</i> = 0.11), however increased the risk of pacemaker implantation at 1 year (RR 4.68 [95% CI 3.60-6.08], I<sup>2</sup> = 67%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). <h3>Conclusions</h3> NOP-LBBB is associated with higher mortality and heart failure rehospitalization after TAVI, whilst both NOP-LBBB and NOP-RBBB increase the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation at 1 year after TAVI.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.017
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.354 · 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