Postnatal circulation in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing fetal aortic valvuloplasty: systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fetal aortic valvuloplasty (FAV) has become a treatment option for critical fetal aortic stenosis (AS) with the goal of preserving biventricular circulation (BVC); however, to date, it is unclear how many patients undergoing FAV achieve BVC. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the type of postnatal circulation achieved following FAV. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for studies investigating postnatal circulation in patients with AS following FAV. Eligible for inclusion were original papers in the English language, published from 2000 to 2020, with at least 12 months of follow-up after birth. Review papers, abstracts, expert opinions, books, editorials and case reports were excluded. The titles and abstracts of all retrieved literature were screened, duplicates were excluded and the full texts of potentially eligible articles were obtained and assessed. The primary endpoint was type of postnatal circulation. Additional assessed outcomes included fetal death, live birth, neonatal death (NND), termination of pregnancy (TOP) and technical success of the FAV procedure. The quality of articles was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. To estimate the overall proportion of each endpoint, meta-analysis of proportions was employed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The electronic search identified 579 studies, of which seven were considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 266 fetuses underwent FAV with median follow-up per study from 12 months to 13.2 years. There were no maternal deaths and only one case of FAV-related maternal complication was reported. Hydrops was present in 29 (11%) patients. The pooled prevalence of BVC and univentricular circulation (UVC) among liveborn patients was 45.8% (95% CI, 39.2-52.4%) and 43.6% (95% CI, 33.9-53.8%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of technically successful FAV procedure was 82.1% (95% CI, 74.3-87.9%), of fetal death it was 16.0% (95% CI, 11.2-22.4%), of TOP 5.7% (95% CI, 2.0-15.5%), of live birth 78.8% (95% CI, 66.5-87.4%), of NND 8.7% (95% CI, 4.7-15.5%), of palliative care 4.0% (95% CI, 1.9-8.4%) and of infant death 10.3% (95% CI, 3.6-26.1%). The pooled prevalence of BVC and UVC among liveborn patients who had technically successful FAV was 51.9% (95% CI, 44.7-59.1%) and 39.8% (95% CI, 29.7-50.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a BVC rate of 46% among liveborn patients with AS undergoing FAV, which improved to 52% when subjects underwent technically successful FAV. Given the lack of randomized clinical trials, results should be interpreted with caution. Currently, data do not suggest a true benefit of FAV for achieving BVC. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".