Preventing cardiovascular complications in adults with congenital heart disease: predictors and outcomes of the levels of follow-up care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Aims Although international recommendations suggest follow-up care for adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients should be provided in either specialized ACHD care or non-specialized ACHD care by a general cardiologist, these guidelines are variably implemented based on local resources. We investigated levels of care used by ACHD patients and predictors and outcomes of specialized ACHD follow-up, non-specialized ACHD follow-up, no cardiac follow-up, and no follow-up. Methods and results We performed a longitudinal study in 10 459 patients across three hospitals in Belgium, covering 79 065 patient-years. The outcomes of interest were the occurrence of heart failure, arrhythmias, valvular problems, infective endocarditis, myocardial ischaemia, thromboembolic events, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess predictors of cardiac follow-up and multivariable Cox regressions with time-varying lagged effects to explore associations with outcome. Specialized ACHD care was observed in 19% of all patient-years, non-specialized ACHD follow-up in 25% of patient-years, non-cardiac follow-up in 53%, and no follow-up in 3%. While patients with complex defects are assumed to receive follow-up in specialized ACHD cardiac care, this was the case in only 52% of their patient-years. Male sex, genetic syndrome, and no intervention history were predictors for being in higher levels of follow-up. Follow-up in specialized ACHD care was protective for heart failure and myocardial ischaemia. Any cardiac follow-up was protective for myocardial ischaemia and thromboembolic events. Conclusion Both levels of specialized and non-specialized ACHD cardiac follow-up care were protective for certain clinical outcomes, highlighting the importance of cardiac follow-up in ACHD. Lay summary This study looked at how adults living with congenital heart disease in Belgium are monitored over time and how the type of follow-up care they receive relates to their health outcomes.Key finding 1: Over the total period studied (counted in patient-years, meaning 1 year of follow-up for one patient), only about one in five of these patient-years took place in specialized congenital heart clinics. Even among those with the most complex heart conditions, only around half received continuous follow-up in specialized congenital heart disease centres. Many adults instead received care from general cardiologists and non-cardiac doctors or sometimes did not have routine follow-up.Key finding 2: Adults who received regular cardiac follow-up—especially in specialized congenital heart disease centres—were less likely to develop serious problems such as heart failure, heart attacks, or blood clots, compared with those who had no follow-up.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».