Risk Factors Associated With Ventricular Dysfunction in Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is associated with ventricular dysfunction in the absence of sustained tachyarrhythmias. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of ventricular dysfunction and to assess risk factors associated with this condition. Methods A single-centre retrospective analysis of all patients <18 years of age with WPW syndrome and normal cardiac anatomy who underwent an electrophysiology study ablation over a 14-year period was performed. Patients with an ejection fraction <55% were defined as having ventricular dysfunction. Results Among 305 patients, 14 cases (4.5%) with ventricular dysfunction were identified. In 4 of 14 cases (28%), the presenting symptom was heart failure, and only 6 of 14 (43%) had symptoms of palpitations or documented supraventricular tachycardia. The vast majority of patients with dysfunction had right-sided pathways, and only 2 patients had a left-sided pathway locations. Right anteroseptal, anterior, and anterolateral accessory pathway locations were more common in the dysfunction group. The presence of multiple pathways and pathway characteristics assessed during electrophysiology study were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions The prevalence of ventricular dysfunction in WPW syndrome in children was 4.5%, and this is seen more frequently with right anteroseptal, anterior, and anterolateral pathway locations. Risk analysis identified these pathway locations to be associated with a 4-fold risk of developing ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio: 4.32 [confidence interval: 1.38-14.18], P = 0.012). Because of this rare complication, serial assessment of ventricular function is recommended regardless of arrhythmia burden and an ablation should be considered in the presence of dysfunction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".