Value of Programmed Ventricular Stimulation After Tetralogy of Fallot Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have consistently shown that ventricular tachycardia (VT) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) complicate the long-term outcome after tetralogy of Fallot repair, yet the diagnostic and predictive value of electrophysiological testing in this population is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicenter cohort of 252 patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot undergoing programmed ventricular stimulation was followed up for 18.5+/-9.6 and 6.5+/-4.5 years after corrective surgery and electrophysiological testing, respectively. Clinical VT and/or SCD occurred in 24.6%. Sustained monomorphic VT and polymorphic VT were induced in 30.2% and 4.4%. Including polymorphic VT in the definition of inducibility improved sensitivity (66.1+/-6.0% versus 77.4+/-5.3%, P=0.0082) with a marginal reduction in specificity (81.6+/-2.8% versus 79.5+/-2.9%, P=0.0455). Positive and negative predictive values were 55.2+/-5.3% and 91.5+/-2.2%. Independent risk factors for inducibility were age at study > or =18 years (OR, 3.3), palpitations (OR, 2.8), prior palliative surgery (OR, 3.1), modified Lown criteria > or =2 (OR, 5.6), and cardiothoracic ratio > or =0.6 (OR, 3.3). Event-free survival rates in noninducible and inducible patients at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years were 97.9%, 92.8%, 89.3%, and 89.3% versus 79.4%, 62.6%, 58.7%, and 50.3%, respectively (P<0.0001). Both inducible monomorphic VT [relative risk (RR), 5.0; P=0.0002] and polymorphic VT (RR, 12.9; P<0.0001) predicted future clinical VT and SCD. In a multivariate analysis, inducible sustained VT was an independent risk factor for subsequent events (RR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 18.5; P=0.0268). CONCLUSIONS: Programmed ventricular stimulation is of diagnostic and prognostic value in risk stratifying patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot. In this patient population, inducible sustained polymorphic VT should not be disregarded as nonspecific.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".