High-risk Fontan completion patients achieve low perioperative risk and benefit from cavopulmonary connection 7 years out†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our unit has pursued Fontan completion in all patients except those with immobility or combined poor ventricular function and high pulmonary artery pressures. We assessed retrospectively whether conventional high-risk criteria would predict patients with a poorer outcome. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three consecutive children who underwent extracardiac Fontan completion (2004-2012) had their outcomes recorded (mean follow-up of 7 years). Three groups were analysed: those with 1 of 6 historical risk factors (outside 6 commandments), those with 1 of reduced systemic ventricular function or pulmonary artery pressure >15 mmHg (outside 2 commandments) versus those with no contraindications. The Fischer's exact test examined frequency differences, with the χ2 test to look for outcome associations. RESULTS: There were no differences in postoperative complication rates between the outside 6 commandments (n = 105) or outside 2 commandments (n = 49) versus the low-risk no-contraindication group (n = 28): arrhythmias [18% (P = 0.3) or 18% (P = 0.3) vs 25%], infection [22% (P = 0.6) or 33% (P = 0.2) vs 21%], cerebrovascular accident [6% (P = 0.5) or 10% (P = 0.3) vs 4%], length of stay [20 days (P = 0.4) or 23 days (P = 0.2) vs 21 days] and duration of chest drainage (P = 0.5). There was 1 predischarge mortality in each group. Long term, the majority of patients in each group had suitable haemodynamics for fenestration closure [95% (P = 0.7) or 95% (P = 0.7) vs 92%]. Long term, there was no difference in the rate of arrhythmias [11% (P = 0.5) or 12.5% (P = 0.3) vs 7%], protein-losing enteropathy [1% (P = 0.1) or 2% (P = 0.3) vs 7%] or moderate or more ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography [2% (P = 0.7) or 4% (P = 0.7) vs 4%]. Notably, there was a higher rate of catheter reinterventions in the high-risk groups [22% (P < 0.05) or 24% (P < 0.05) vs 7%]. CONCLUSIONS: The medium-term benefits of Fontan completion can be achieved for high-risk patients, suggesting that historical selection criteria should be re-examined.
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 | 0.000 | 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".