Prenatal diagnosis of complete atrioventricular block associated with structural heart disease: combined experience of two tertiary care centers and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the pattern of presentation, management and outcome of fetal complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) associated with major structural congenital heart disease (CHD), when compared to isolated CAVB. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the medical records and echocardiograms of all CAVB cases, diagnosed prenatally at two tertiary care centers between the years 1990 and 2002. RESULTS: Of a total of 59 consecutive fetal cases of CAVB, 24 (41%) had underlying major CHD, mainly left isomerism (n = 18) and congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (cc-TGA) (n = 3). When compared to isolated CAVB (n = 35), cases with CHD were detected earlier (21 +/- 6 vs. 26 +/- 6 weeks; P < 0.02) and-despite comparable heart rates-more often had fetal hydrops (38% vs. 9%; P < 0.02), while pregnancy continuation (66% vs. 94%; P < 0.02) or prenatal treatment (19% vs. 64%; P < 0.001) was less likely. Of 16 CHD cases with pregnancy continuation, beta-inotropic treatment of fetal bradycardia was attempted in three cases: all had left isomerism and died early postnatally. Livebirth and 1-year survival rates of CAVB with CHD were 56% and 19%, respectively, when compared to isolated CAVB with 88% and 75%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The four neonatal survivors (one left isomerism, three cc-TGA) had heart rates persistently > 60 bpm throughout gestation and 3/4 underwent a biventricular repair. CONCLUSIONS: Fetal CAVB with CHD continues to be associated with a poor outcome, in particular in the presence of left isomerism and fetal heart rates < 60 bpm.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".