The Role of Packaged Red Blood Cells Administration on Long-term Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has shown lower procedural risk compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, bleeding complications may require the administration of packed red blood cell units (PRBCs). The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of bleeding complications and PRBC administrations over the last 13 years, and their impact on long-term outcomes in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI. METHODS: All patients undergoing TAVI in Switzerland have been consecutively included in a nationwide prospective registry, the Swiss TAVI Registry. PRBC-administration was tracked until hospital discharge. The primary outcome of the present analysis was all-cause mortality at five years. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at one year, as well as in-hospital complications. RESULTS: In total, 14'765 patients who underwent TAVI from 2011 to December 2023 were included. A total of 1411 patients (9.5%) received PRBCs during hospitalization. All-cause mortality was significantly higher among patients receiving PRBC at one year (16.8% vs. 8.4%, HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8 - 2.5) and five years (58.5% vs. 44.2%, HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.5 - 1.8, p<0.001). PRBC was identified as an independent predictor of mortality at five years (aHR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10 - 1.32, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding complications remain prevalent in patients undergoing TAVI. Patients requiring PRBC-administration during their hospitalization for TAVI had a 1.5-fold higher mortality up to five years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".