A prospective randomized evaluation of the TriGuard (TM) HDH embolic DEFLECTion device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation : results fromthe DEFLECT III trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and performance of the TriGuard (TM) HDH Embolic Deflection Device (TriGuard) compared with no cerebral protection in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and results From February 2014 to March 2015, 85 subjects undergoing TAVI at 13 centres in Europe and Israelwere randomized to TriGuard protection vs. no protection. Subjects underwent neurologic and cognitive evaluation at baseline, pre-discharge and 30 days; cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 4 +/- 2 days post-procedure and at 30 days. Technical success, which included complete 3-vessel cerebral coverage, was achieved in 88.9% (40/45) of cases. The primary in-hospital procedural safety endpoint (death, stroke, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage2 or 3 acute kidney injury, or major vascular complications) occurred in 21.7% ofTriGuard and 30.8% of control subjects (P = 0.34). In the Per Treatment population (subjects with complete three-vessel cerebral coverage), TriGuard use was associated with greater freedom from new ischaemic brain lesions (26.9 vs. 11.5%), fewer new neurologic deficits detected by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (3.1 vs. 15.4%), improved Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, better performance on a delayed memory task (P = 0.028) at discharge, and a >2-fold increase in recovery of normal cognitive function (MoCA score >26) at 30 days. Conclusion TriGuard cerebral protection during TAVI is safe and complete cerebral vessel coveragewas achieved in 89% of subjects. In this exploratory study, subjects undergoing protected TAVI had more freedom from ischaemic brain lesions, fewer neurologic deficits, and improved cognitive function in some domains at discharge and 30 days compared with controls.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".