Hybrid Versus Norwood Strategies for Single-Ventricle Palliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hybrid and Norwood strategies differ substantially in terms of stage II palliative procedures. We sought to compare these strategies with an emphasis on survival and reintervention after stage II and subsequent Fontan completion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 110 neonates with functionally single-ventricle physiology who underwent stage I palliation between 2004 and 2010, 75 (69%) infants (Norwood, n=43; hybrid, n=32) who subsequently underwent stage II palliation were studied. Survival and reintervention rates after stage II palliation, anatomic and physiologic variables at pre-Fontan assessment, and Fontan outcomes were compared between the groups. Predictors for reintervention were analyzed. Freedom from death/transplant after stage II palliation was equivalent between the groups (Norwood, 80.4% versus hybrid, 85.6% at 3 years, P=0.66). Hybrid patients had a higher pulmonary artery (PA) reintervention rate (P=0.003) and lower Nakata index at pre-Fontan evaluation (P=0.015). Aortic arch and atrioventricular valve reinterventions were not different between the groups. Ventricular end-diastolic pressure, mean PA pressure, and ventricular function were equivalent at pre-Fontan assessment. There were no deaths after Fontan completion in either group (Norwood, n=25, hybrid, n=14). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after stage II palliation and subsequent Fontan completion is equivalent between the groups. The hybrid group had a higher PA reintervention rate and smaller PA size. Both strategies achieved adequate physiology for Fontan completion. Evolution of the hybrid strategy requires refinement to provide optimal PA growth.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".