Assessing the Impact of Urgency and Delays to Transcatheter Edge‐to‐Edge Repair in a New Regional Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of acuity in patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for mitral regurgitation (MR) treatment remains unclear. AIMS: This study examined outcome differences between elective versus urgent TEER cohorts, as well as identifying existence of referral delays to a new regional TEER program. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing TEER between 2021 and 2023 in the Fraser Health Authority were identified. Outcomes were compared between patients having elective versus urgent TEER. The co-primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and heart failure (HF) readmission. Logistic regression was performed to determine associations between urgency and 1 year outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients underwent TEER over 2 years. Twenty-one (40%) had urgent procedures. Urgent TEER patients more frequently had baseline NYHA IV status and higher STS-mortality scores. Both 1 year mortality (Urgent 38.1% vs. Elective 6.7%, p = 0.01) and HF readmission (Urgent 47.6% vs. Elective 12.9%, p < 0.01) rates were significantly higher in the urgent cohort. Procedural urgency was the only independent predictor of 1 year mortality (OR 20.83, 95% CI 1.27-341.56) and HF readmission (OR 13.56, 95% CI 1.98-92.81). Amongst urgent patients, a median delay of 97 days (IQR 16,307) from significant MR diagnosis to TEER referral was noted, despite > 80% specialist involvement. During delays, 14 (67%) patients had ≥ 1 pre-TEER HF admission. CONCLUSION: In a new regional program, urgent TEER was associated with increased 1 year mortality and HF readmissions. Preprocedural HF admissions were common with delayed TEER referral, suggesting further study to determine whether referral expediency can lessen patient acuity and improve outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".