Long-term outcomes after the atrial switch for surgical correction of transposition: a meta-analysis comparing the Mustard and Senning procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most adults with regular transposition (the combinations of concordant atrioventricular and discordant ventriculo-arterial connections) have undergone either the Mustard or Senning procedure in childhood. It is unclear whether adverse events differ according to the surgery performed. With this in mind, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare long-term outcomes. We searched systematically entries to MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1966 through August 2003, supplementing the search by secondary sources. Comparative studies were required to include at least 10 patients in each cohort of Mustard or Senning procedure, and to report overall survival. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We used a component approach to assess quality. On the basis of assessment of heterogeneity, we then used a random-effects model for pooled analyses. In all, we included seven studies, incorporating 885 patients. We found a trend towards lower mortality for the 369 patients undergoing a Mustard procedure when compared to 474 submitted to the Senning operation, with a hazard ratio of 0.63 and 95% confidence intervals between 0.35 and 1.14 (p = 0.13). This trend increased with the size of the sample (p = 0.004). Obstruction in the systemic venous pathway was more common in those having the Mustard procedure, with a risk ratio of 3.5 and 95% confidence intervals from 1.8 to 7.0 (p < 0.001), with a trend towards greater obstruction of the pulmonary venous pathway in those undergoing the Senning procedure, 7.6% vs. 3.8% (p = 0.27). A trend towards fewer residual shunts was observed for those with Mustard baffles, 7.0% vs. 14.1% (p = 0.10). Sinus nodal dysfunction, however, was more common after the Mustard procedure. Data regarding atrial tachydysrhythmias was inconclusive. Systemic cardiac failure and functional capacity, was similar. We conclude that outcomes are not uniform among patients submitted to the Mustard and Senning procedures. Knowledge of such differences may facilitate stratification of risk and follow-up.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".