MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Coronary Artery Disease on Cardiovascular Outcomes Differs Between Men and Women With Severe Aortic Stenosis

2025· article· en· W4410786014 on OpenAlexaff
Kayla Brown, Ke Xu, Rebecca T. Hahn, Philippe Pîbarot, Jonathon Leipsic, Marie‐Annick Clavel, Sammy Elmariah, Neil J. Weissman, Federico M. Asch, Omar Khalique, Martin B. Leon, Paul Cremer, Brian R. Lindman, Maria Alu, Pamela S. Douglas, Melissa A. Daubert

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionStenosisRevascularizationProportional hazards modelStroke (engine)Heart failureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity in coronary artery disease (CAD) severity among individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS), but whether this differentially influences prognosis is unknown. METHODS: Patients with severe AS in the PARTNER 1, 2, and 3 trials and registries (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) were stratified by obstructive CAD (coronary stenosis ≥50%, prior myocardial infarction, or revascularization) or no obstructive CAD (all stenoses <50%). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models examined the association between CAD severity groups and clinical outcomes. The primary composite end point was death, heart failure hospitalization, or stroke at 5 years. Interaction between sex and CAD severity was evaluated. RESULTS: Among 7505 patients with severe AS, 2062 (27.5%) had no obstructive CAD and were more likely to be women (60.5%) with fewer CAD risk factors. After multivariable adjustment, the primary end point was significantly lower among patients with no obstructive CAD compared with those with obstructive CAD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92 [CI, 0.84–1.00]; P =0.04), irrespective of AS treatment. However, there were significant differences by sex ( P interaction =0.0002). Men with no obstructive CAD had a 16% lower event rate compared with men with obstructive CAD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84 [CI, 0.73–0.96]; P =0.01). In contrast, women with no obstructive CAD did not have a significantly lower rate of death, stroke, or heart failure hospitalization compared with women with obstructive CAD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95 [CI, 0.85–1.07]; P =0.41). Women with no obstructive CAD had a more advanced heart failure phenotype and higher event rates compared with men with no obstructive CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Obstructive CAD was associated with a higher risk of long-term adverse events after treatment for severe AS, but there was a significant sex disparity in clinical outcomes among men and women with no obstructive CAD. Further study is needed to optimize the evaluation and management of women with severe AS.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.011
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207