MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412523927 · doi:10.20344/amp.22905

Antithrombotic Treatment After Valve-in-Valve, Valve-in-Ring, and Valve-in-MAC Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412523927 on OpenAlex
G Costa, Joana Silva, Lino Gonçalves

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

VenueActa Médica Portuguesa · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntithromboticMeta-analysisMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMechanical heart-valveHeart valve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: While antithrombotic therapy following transcatheter valve implantation has been extensively studied in various clinical trials, there remains a notable gap in evidence regarding the optimal approach following valve-in-valve (ViV), valve-in-ring (ViR) and valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) procedures, warranting further assessment. This gap is particularly concerning due to the apparent increased risk of thrombosis associated with ViV interventions. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential benefits of anticoagulation in ViV, ViR, and ViMAC procedures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as the grey literature, for observational and interventional studies published until December 2023. Trials were included if a comparative analysis between the two antithrombotic strategies was feasible and excluded if patients under 18 years old were analysed. The primary efficacy endpoints were incidence of clinical and total valve thrombosis (VT), major bleeding was the sole safety primary endpoint. Additional analyses were performed regarding valves in the mitral position and valve type. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data was assessed using the Review Manager 5.4 software. RESULTS: A total of five observational and one case series were included (n = 614 on anticoagulation and n = 468 on antiplatelets), comprising a total of 1082 participants. Clinical VT rates were 4.2% for all procedures, and patients on anticoagulants were associated with a a lower risk of clinical VT (1.1% vs 8.3%; OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.42, I2: 0%) and total VT (1.3% vs 8.5%; OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.37, I2: 0%). Regarding bleeding events, the existing literature did not provide adequate information to enable a thorough analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests a potential benefit of anticoagulation regimens to decrease the high rates of VT following valve-in-valve, valve-in-ring and valve-in-mitral annular calcification procedures. However, the lack of randomized controlled trials and data on bleeding and mortality emphasises the necessity for further research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.022
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.388
Teacher spread0.349 · 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