MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Changes in functional capacity with early inpatient cardiac rehabilitation following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis

2025· article· en· W7127652016 on OpenAlexaff
J Riess, E Alba Schmidt, Gloria Petrasch, M Albus, Sonja Sichler, Greta Hametner, H Brito Da Silva, J Vontobel, M J Haykowsky, D Niederseer, S J Foulkes

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic valve replacementStenosisRehabilitationRetrospective cohort studyAortic valve stenosisCardiac surgeryValve replacement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with profound functional impairment. While valve replacement with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with improvements in symptoms and mortality, many patients experience persistent functional limitations that could benefit from early inpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR). Purpose To determine changes in functional capacity following early inpatient EBCR following SAVR or TAVI for severe AS, and to determine if this differs by surgical approach (SAVR vs TAVR). Methods Patients referred for early inpatient EBCR following SAVR or TAVI between December 2022 and June 2024 who completed six-minute walk test assessments at admission and discharge from EBCR were included in this retrospective single-center study. Functional capacity was assessed from the distance covered during a six-minute walk test (6MWD) completed in accordance with guidelines from the American Thoracic Society. Patients were sub-grouped into TAVI (n=33) and SAVR approaches including mini-thoracotomy (n=22), hemi-sternotomy (n=67) and sternotomy (n=24). Results for 6MWD were compared in relation to normative age-, sex- and body mass index predicted 6MWD values for patients undergoing EBCR from our center, as well as published predictive 6MWD values for community-dwelling healthy older adults. Results Overall, 146 patients were included in the current analysis. Compared to the SAVR groups, patients who had undergone TAVI were older and had a higher proportion of females (Table 1). At admission, and regardless of the surgical approach, all patient groups had 6MWD values that were well below healthy reference values (Figure 1). TAVI patients had lower 6MWD than all three SAVR groups (P=0.035), although, this was largely explained by their older age, as the deficit in 6MWD relative to age-matched healthy referent values was similar to SAVR-sternotomy and SAVR-hemi-sternotomy (but not SAVR mini-thoracotomy) groups. All groups showed substantial improvements in 6MWD following inpatient EBCR (Table 1 and Figure 1), although TAVI patients showed significantly less (P=0.006) improvement (84m [45-124m]) than SAVR-mini-thoracotomy (128, [95-151m]), SAVR-hemi-sternotomy (147m [98-196m]) and SAVR-sternotomy patients (159m [100-223m]), such that their median post-EBCR 6MWD values remained 123-138m below the median value for the SAVR groups (P<0.001), and failed to reach age-predicted healthy referent values. Conclusion Early inpatient EBCR results in significant improvements in functional capacity for patients who have undergone TAVI or SAVR for severe AS. However, TAVI patients experience lesser improvements and persistent functional limitations at discharge compared to SAVR patients, that suggests a longer period of EBCR may be required for this vulnerable patient population.Regression of age vs 6MWD Baseline characteristics

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→