Impact of Fontan Fenestration on Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Multicentre Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fenestrating a Fontan baffle has been associated with improved perioperative outcomes in patients with univentricular hearts. However, longer-term potential adverse effects remain debated. We sought to assess the impact of a fenestrated Fontan baffle on adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause mortality, cardiac transplantation, atrial arrhythmias, and thromboemboli. METHODS: A multicentre North American retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with total cavopulmonary connection Fontan baffle, with and without fenestration. All components of the composite outcome were independently adjudicated. Potential static and time-varying confounders were taken into consideration, along with competing risks. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients were followed for 10.4 (7.1-14.4) years; 70.0% had fenestration of their Fontan baffle. The fenestration spontaneously closed or was deliberately sealed in 79.9% of patients a median of 2.0 years after Fontan completion. In multivariable analysis in which a persistent fenestration was modelled as a time-dependent variable, an open fenestration did not confer a higher risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.97; P = 0.521). In secondary analyses, an open fenestration was not significantly associated with components of the primary outcome: that is, mortality or transplantation, atrial arrhythmias, or thromboemboli. However, sensitivity analyses to assess the possible range of error resulting from imprecise dates for spontaneous fenestration closures could not rule out significant associations between an open fenestration and atrial arrhythmias or thromboemboli. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre study, no significant association was identified between an open fenestration in the Fontan baffle and major adverse cardiovascular events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".