Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in women: the RHEIA trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis have more complications than men when undergoing surgical valve replacement, they are under-represented in clinical trials. The Randomized researcH in womEn all comers wIth Aortic stenosis (RHEIA) trial investigates the balance of benefits and risks of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgery in women. METHODS: Women were randomized 1:1 to transfemoral TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary composite endpoint was death, stroke, or (valve, procedure or heart failure related) rehospitalization at 1 year. Non-inferiority testing with a pre-specified 6% margin and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 48 European centres, 443 women underwent randomization, and 420 were treated as randomized. Mean age was 73 years, and the mean estimated surgical risk of death was 2.1% (Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the primary endpoint event rates at 1 year were 8.9% in the TAVI and 15.6% in the surgery group. This difference of -6.8% with an upper 95% confidence limit of -1.5% demonstrated the non-inferiority of TAVI (P < .001). The two-sided 95% confidence interval of -13.0% to -.5% further resulted in superiority (P = .034). The 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint components was: .9% with TAVI vs. 2.0% with surgery for death from any cause, 3.3% vs. 3.0% for stroke, and 5.8% vs. 11.4% for rehospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was lower with TAVI than with surgery. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT04160130.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".