Echocardiographic Definition and Surgical Decision-Making in Unbalanced Atrioventricular Septal Defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although identification of unbalanced atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) is obvious when extreme, exact criteria to define the limits of unbalanced are not available. We sought to validate an atrioventricular valve index (AVVI) (left atrioventricular valve area/total atrioventricular valve area, centimeters squared) as a discriminator of balanced and unbalanced forms of complete AVSD and to characterize the association of AVVI with surgical strategies and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Diagnostic echocardiograms and hospital records of 356 infants with complete AVSD at 4 Congenital Heart Surgeons' Society (CHSS) institutions (2000-2006) were reviewed and AVVI measured (n=315). Patients were classified as unbalanced if AVVI≤0.4 (right dominant) or ≥0.6 (left dominant). Surgical strategy and outcomes were examined across the range of AVVI. Competing risks analysis until the time of commitment to a surgical strategy examined 4 end states: biventricular repair (BVR), univentricular repair (UVR), pulmonary artery banding (PAB), and death before surgery. A prediction nomogram for surgical strategy based on AVVI was developed. The majority of patients had balanced AVSD (0.4<AVVI<0.6) and underwent BVR. Patients with AVVI<0.19 uniformly underwent UVR. Heterogeneous repair strategies were found when 0.19≤AVVI≤0.39 (UVR and BVR), with a disproportionate number of deaths in this range. AVVI≥0.6 (left dominant) was less common. The proportion of subjects predicted for the end states at 12 months after diagnosis are: BVR, 86%; UVR, 7%; PAB, 1%; death without surgery, 1%; alive without surgery, 5%. CONCLUSIONS: AVVI effectively characterizes the transition between balanced and unbalanced AVSD with important correlation to anatomic substrate and selected surgical strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".