Gender-based outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement: a multicentre propensity score matching analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the gnder-based difference in three-year clinical outcomes, left ventricular (LV) regression, and quality-of-life (QoL) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: A prospective multicentre study on combined data from two prospective registries, INDURE and IMPACT, resulted in 993 patients (735 males and 258 females). PSM yielded 689 patients: 442 males and 247 females undergoing first-time SAVR using Edwards INSPIRIS RESILIA. RESULTS: In the PSM cohort, females had lower body mass index (median 27.9 vs 28.6 kg/m2; P = 0.004), higher European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II (2.4 ± 3.0 % vs 1.8 ± 1.9 %; P < 0.001), Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (1.8 ± 1.7 % vs 1.3 ± 2.0 %; P < 0.001) and were most often in New York Heart Association class III/IV (45.7 % vs 37.6 %; P < 0.021), angina CCS class III/IV (6.1 % vs 2.9 %; P < 0.001) than males. Post-SAVR clinical outcomes up to three years were similar between both genders. Significant differences existed for LV regression after surgery between genders at up to three years (P < 0.001) with better haemodynamic performance. Hypertension slowed the LV mass regression, mildly affecting LV restoration in females for up to three years. In both genders, New York Heart Association status was restored within one year (P < 0.001) and maintained for up to three years (P < 0.001). At three years, QoL significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Despite females presenting with a significantly higher surgical risk profile, three-year outcomes following SAVR were comparable between genders with significant improvement in functional status. However, the degree of QoL improvement differed between genders. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04053088/-NCT03666741.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".