Risk factors for postoperative pulmonary venous obstruction after surgical repair of total anomalous pulmonary venous connection: a systemic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the risk factors for postoperative pulmonary venous obstruction (PVO) after surgical repair of total anomalous pulmonary venous connection (TAPVC). METHODS: Data bases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched systematically. The goal was to discuss the risk factors for postoperative PVO after TAPVC. Publications were screened by 2 authors independently for criteria inclusion, methodological quality assessment and data extraction. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality checklist were obtained to assess the quality of the studies. Data were pooled by the random effect model or the fixed effect model according to the heterogeneity test. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (2,385 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies were retrospective studies. Six potential risk factors were pooled, 5 of which were significantly associated with postoperative PVO. Patients with preoperative PVO were more likely to suffer from postoperative PVO [odds ratio (OR)=5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (2.75, 10.11), P < 0.01]. Compared with a sutureless procedure, the conventional operative procedure was associated with postoperative PVO [OR = 1.80, 95% CI=(1.20, 2.71), P < 0.01]. A mixed type TAPVC plays a critical role in postoperative PVO [OR = 3.78, 95% CI=(1.08, 13.18), P = 0.04]. Inverse variance analysis showed that longer cardiopulmonary bypass time [hazard ratio (HR)=1.01, 95% CI=(1.01, 1.02), P < 0.00001] and aortic cross-clamp time [HR = 1.01, 95% CI=(1.01, 1.02), P < 0.01] were significantly associated with postoperative PVO. Heterotaxy [OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.13, 10.45, P = 0.88] was not statistically significant as a risk factor for postoperative PVO. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis may provide a perspective on the risk factors for postoperative PVO after TAPVC, thus leading to more studies predicting postoperative PVO after TAPVC with our findings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".