Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO) is a cause of hemodynamic instability that can occur in several situations, including cardiac surgery, lung transplantation, and thoracic surgery, and in critically ill patients. The timely diagnosis of RVOTO is important because it requires specific considerations, including the adverse effects of positive inotropes, and depending on the etiology, the requirement for urgent surgical intervention. METHODS: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the prevalence of RVOTO in adult patients, and the distribution of all reported cases by etiology. RESULTS: Of 233 available reports, there were 229 case reports or series, and 4 retrospective cohort studies, with one study also reporting a prospective cohort. Of 291 reported cases of RVOTO, 61 (21%) were congenital, 56 (19%) were iatrogenic, and 174 (60%) were neither congenital nor iatrogenic (including intracardiac tumour). The mechanism of RVOTO was an intrinsic obstruction in 169 cases (58%), and an extrinsic obstruction in 122 cases (42%). A mechanical obstruction causing RVOTO was present in 262 cases (90%), and 29 cases of dynamic RVOTO (10%) were reported. In the 5 included cohorts, with a total of 1122 patients, the overall prevalence was estimated to be 4.0% (1%-9%). CONCLUSIONS: RVOTO, though rare, remains clinically important, and therefore, multicentre studies are warranted to better understand the prevalence, causes, and consequences of RVOTO.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".