Outcomes after initial heart failure consultation in Fontan patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Fontan failure are high-risk candidates for heart transplantation and other advanced therapies. Understanding the outcomes following initial heart failure consultation can help define appropriate timing of referral for advanced heart failure care. METHODS: This is a survey study of heart failure providers seeing any Fontan patient for initial heart failure care. Part 1 of the survey captured data on clinical characteristics at the time of heart failure consultation, and Part 2, completed 30 days later, captured outcomes (death, transplant evaluation outcome, and other interventions). Patients were classified as "too late" (death or declined for transplant due to being too sick) and/or "care escalation" (ventricular assist device implanted, inotrope initiated, and/or listed for transplant), within 30 days. "Late referral" was defined as those referred too late and/or had care escalation. RESULTS: Between 7/2020 and 7/2022, 77 Fontan patients (52% inpatient) had an initial heart failure consultation. Ten per cent were referred too late (6 were too sick for heart transplantation with one subsequent death, and two others died without heart transplantation evaluation, within 30 days), and 36% had care escalation (21 listed ± 5 ventricular assist device implanted ± 6 inotrope initiated). Overall, 42% were late referrals. Heart failure consultation < 1 year after Fontan surgery was strongly associated with late referral (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.8-21.5, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Over 40% of Fontan patients seen for an initial heart failure consultation were late referrals, with 10% dying or being declined for transplant within a month of consultation. Earlier referral, particularly for those with heart failure soon after Fontan surgery, should be encouraged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".