Improved Outcomes After Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Repaired Tetralogy of Fallot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) on major adverse clinical outcomes in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether PVR is associated with improved survival and freedom from sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in rTOF. A PVR propensity score was created to adjust for baseline differences between PVR and non-PVR patients enrolled in INDICATOR (International Multicenter TOF Registry). The primary outcome was time to the earliest occurrence of death or sustained VT. PVR and non-PVR patients were matched 1:1 on PVR propensity score (matched cohort) and in the full cohort, modeling was performed with propensity score as a covariate adjustment. Among 1,143 patients with rTOF (age 27 ± 14 years, 47% PVR, follow-up 8.3 ± 5.2 years), the primary outcome occurred in 82. The adjusted HR for the primary outcome for PVR vs no-PVR (matched cohort n = 524) was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.21-0.81; multivariable model P = 0.010). Full cohort analysis revealed similar results. Subgroup analysis suggested beneficial effects in patients with advanced right ventricular (RV) dilatation (interaction P = 0.046; full cohort). In patients with RV end-systolic volume index >80 mL/m2, PVR was associated with a lower primary outcome risk (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.16-0.62; P < 0.001). There was no association between PVR and the primary outcome in patients with RV end-systolic volume index ≤80 mL/m2 (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.38-1.92; P = 0.70). Compared with rTOF patients who did not receive PVR, propensity score-matched individuals receiving PVR had lower risk of a composite endpoint of death or sustained VT.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".