MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 16725: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: Propensity-Matched Comparison to Standard Aortic Valve Replacement

2011· article· en· W85259202 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Dumont, D. John Doyle, Rodrigo Bagur, Robert DeLarochellière, Dimitri Kalavrouziotis, P. Pibarot, Josep Rodés‐Cabau

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac skeletonCardiologyStenosisAortic valve replacementInternal medicineAortic valveAortic valve stenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Few data exist on the results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation(TAVI) in patients with a small aortic annulus(AA) compared to standard aortic valve replacement(SAVR). We sought to examine valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of patients with a small AA who underwent TAVI versus SAVR. Methods: Between 2007 and 2011, 46 patients (mean age 79.1±9.4 years) with severe aortic stenosis and an AA diameter <19.5 mm (mean 18.3±0.85 mm) underwent TAVI with a 23-mm Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthesis. These patients were compared to 217 propensity-matched patients who underwent SAVR with a 19-mm valve (78% bioprosthesis). Echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed prior to discharge and at follow-up. Results: There was a greater incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (34.6% vs 15.2%, p=0.02), acute kidney injury (12.4% vs 8.7%, p=0.05), and blood product transfusion (83% vs 46%, p<0.001) in the SAVR group compared to the TAVI group. In-hospital mortality was 2.2% in the TAVI group and 6.5% in the SAVR group (p=0.06). One-year survival rate was similar between groups (TAVI 91.3% vs SAVR 87.1%, p=0.20). At hospital discharge, mean transaortic gradients were greater in the SAVR group (18.3 ± 7.2 vs 14.9 ± 9.3 mmHg, p=0.006). Mean indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) was lower in the SAVR group (0.66 ± 0.16 vs 0.84 ± 0.2 cm2/m2, p<0.001), and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (IEOA < 0.65 cm2/m2) occurred more frequently in the SAVR group (53.3%) than in the TAVI group (9.3%) (p<0.001). Aortic regurgitation(AR) occurred in 72% of the patients in the TAVI group (trivial or mild: 70%, moderate: 2%) compared to 28% of the patients in the SAVR group (trivial or mild in all cases), p<0.001. Echocardiographic results remained unchanged at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: In patients with severe AS and a small AA, TAVI is associated with lower postoperative morbidity and better valve hemodynamics but a higher incidence of trivial/mild residual AR as compared to SAVR. These results suggest that TAVI is a reasonable alternative to SAVR in elderly patients with small AA.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→