ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Construct validity of automated assessment of invasively measured hemodynamics during transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is frequently observed following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR). Periprocedural monitoring of invasive hemodynamics has shown promise for diagnosis of PVR, but automated software options are lacking. We aimed to develop a rule-based algorithm for automated assessment of hemodynamic indices of PVR, and evaluate its construct validity and discriminatory value for cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived relevant PVR compared to standard manual hemodynamic assessment. Methods and results: Left ventricular and aortic pressures were invasively measured during TAVR using fluid-filled pigtail catheters. To evaluate construct validity of automated vs. manual assessment of invasive hemodynamics, we compared (i) proportion of cardiac cycles affected by arrhythmias/noise, (ii) pressure gradients, and (iii) PVR indices. Additionally, we compared the discriminatory value of automatically and manually determined PVR indices for CMR-determined relevant PVR at 30-days. In total, 77 patients were enrolled (664 cardiac cycles). Automated filtering of cardiac cycles affected by arrhythmias/noise had a high sensitivity (95.2%) and specificity (86.4%). In addition, excellent agreement was observed between automated and manual computation of mean gradients pre- and post-TAVR [39.3 ± 12.1 vs. 37.5 ± 11.9 mmHg, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.916; 1.92 ± 5.87 vs. 1.14 ± 5.89, ICC: 0.957, respectively], and PVR indices [diastolic delta (DD): 41.7 ± 12.4 vs. 40.6 ± 12.3 mmHg, ICC: 0.982, respectively]. Automated and manual assessment of DD showed comparable discriminatory value for relevant PVR [area under the curve (AUC): 0.81 vs. 0.80, respectively]. Conclusion: Rule-based, automated assessment of hemodynamic indices of PVR showed excellent construct validity and discriminatory value for CMR-determined relevant PVR, supporting its use for real-time evaluation and risk stratification in TAVR patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.