Ikireabilitacijos poveikio pooperacinės reabilitacijos efektyvumui pacientams, kuriems atliekama transkateterinė aortos vožtuvo implantacija (TAVI), tyrimas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Title: The Investigation of the Impact of Pre-Rehabilitation on the Effectiveness of Postoperative Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Aim: To investigate whether pre-rehabilitation enhances the effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Objectives: 1. To evaluate rehabilitation adherence by comparing participation rates between patients who received pre-rehabilitation and those who did not. 2. To assess improvements in functional outcomes (mobility, endurance, exercise tolerance) after TAVI in patients who underwent pre-rehabilitation. 3. To analyze the impact of pre-rehabilitation on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and postoperative recovery experience. 4. To compare hospital stay length, readmission rates, and complication frequency between pre-rehabilitation and non-prehabilitation groups. Methods: This is a systematic literature review based on PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar published between 2010 and 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and meta-analyses reporting outcomes of prehabilitation prior to TAVI, including functional capacity (6MWT), Barthel Index, KCCQ, quality of life, and complication rates. A total of 25 studies were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results: Prehabilitation was associated with significant improvements in physical performance: – 6MWT distances increased by 20–50 meters post-intervention (p < 0.01). – Barthel Index scores improved, indicating enhanced independence. – Quality of life (KCCQ, EQ-5D) scores were higher in prehabilitation groups. – Readmission rates and postoperative complications (e.g., infections, heart failure) were reduced by 20–30%. – Patients undergoing prehabilitation were discharged earlier and had better adherence to postoperative rehabilitation protocols.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".