Survival Data and Predictors of Functional Outcome an Average of 15 Years after the Fontan Procedure: The Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multicenter longitudinal outcome data for Fontan patients surviving into adulthood are lacking. The aim of this study was to better understand contemporary outcomes in Fontan survivors by collecting follow-up data in a previously well-characterized cohort. DESIGN: Baseline data from the Fontan Cross-Sectional Study (Fontan 1) were previously obtained in 546 Fontan survivors aged 11.9 ± 3.4 years. We assessed current transplant-free survival status in all subjects 6.8 ± 0.4 years after the Fontan 1 study. Anatomic, clinical, and surgical data were collected along with socioeconomic status and access to health care. RESULTS: Thirty subjects (5%) died or underwent transplantation since Fontan 1. Subjects with both an elevated (>21 pg/mL) brain natriuretic peptide and a low Child Health Questionnaire physical summary score (<44) measured at Fontan 1 were significantly more likely to die or undergo transplant than the remainder, with a hazard ratio of 6.2 (2.9-13.5). Among 516 Fontan survivors, 427 (83%) enrolled in this follow-up study (Fontan 2) at 18.4 ± 3.4 years of age. Although mean scores on functional health status questionnaires were lower than the general population, individual scores were within the normal range in 78% and 88% of subjects for the Child Health Questionnaire physical and psychosocial summary score, and 97% and 91% for the SF-36 physical and mental aggregate score, respectively. Since Fontan surgery, 119 (28%) had additional cardiac surgery; 55% of these (n = 66) in the interim between Fontan 1 and Fontan 2. A catheter intervention occurred in 242 (57%); 32% of these (n = 78) after Fontan 1. Arrhythmia requiring treatment developed in 118 (28%) after Fontan surgery; 58% of these (n = 68) since Fontan 1. CONCLUSIONS: We found 95% interim transplant-free survival for Fontan survivors over an average of 7 years of follow-up. Continued longitudinal investigation into adulthood is necessary to better understand the determinants of long-term outcomes and to improve functional health status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".