Comparison of Fontan Survivors with and without Pacemakers: A Report from the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although many Fontan patients undergo pacemaker placement, there are few studies characterizing this population. Our purpose was to compare clinical characteristics, functional status and measures of ventricular performance in Fontan patients with and without a pacemaker. PATIENTS AND DESIGN: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute funded Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study characterized 546 Fontan survivors. Clinical characteristics, medical history and study outcomes (Child Health Questionnaire [CHQ]), echocardiographic evaluation of ventricular function, and exercise testing) were compared between subjects with and without pacemakers. RESULTS: Of 71 subjects with pacemakers (13%), 43/71 (61%) were in a paced rhythm at the time of study enrollment (age 11.9 ± 3.4 years). Pacemaker subjects were older at study enrollment, more likely to have single left ventricles, and taking more medications. There were no differences in age at Fontan or Fontan type between the pacemaker and no pacemaker groups. There were no differences in exercise performance between groups. CHQ physical summary scores were lower in the pacemaker subjects (39.7 ± 14.3 vs. 46.1 ± 11.2, P =.001). Ventricular ejection fraction z-score was also lower (-1.4 ± 1.9 vs. -0.8 ± 2.0, P =.05) in pacemaker subjects. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of Fontan survivors, those with a pacemaker have poorer functional status and evidence of decreased ventricular systolic function compared to Fontan survivors without a pacemaker.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".