Trends and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support with transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve from the National Inpatient Sample, 2018 to 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (mTEER) is occasionally required; however, outcomes data are lacking.Methods We utilized the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to identify hospital admissions of adults treated with TAVR and mTEER, with or without MCS, between 2018 and 2021.Results We identified 330,055 patients undergoing TAVR and mTEER, with 3240 in the MCS group and 326,815 in the non-MCS group. From 2018 to 2021, there was a steady increase in procedural volume (P for trend <0.001). Utilization of MCS remained stable (P for trend: total 0.096). The use of any MCS modality was associated with a >26-fold increase in mortality (1.01% vs 26.82%, P < 0.001). Mortality remained steadily high with MCS use (P for trend = 0.08). Length of stay and cost of hospitalization were higher in the MCS group (P < 0.05 for both).Conclusion The use of MCS in patients undergoing TAVR or mTEER was associated with higher mortality, morbidity, and healthcare utilization; however, causation cannot be determined given the inherent limitations of the dataset.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".