Arrhythmias in adult patients after Rastelli surgery: a single-centre experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Rastelli surgery is used for the correction of several CHDs. Although late-onset cardiac arrhythmias have emerged as a major complication after corrective surgeries, there is a paucity of data on arrhythmias after Rastelli surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who had undergone Rastelli surgery and have been followed at the adult CHD clinic at our hospital. Results: A total of 55 patients (36.4% female, age 22.2 ± 6.4 years) were followed for a median period of 24.2 (20.6–31.0) years. Tachyarrhythmias occurred in 21 (38.4 %) patients (n = 15 for atrial tachycardia, 5 for ventricular tachycardia, and 1 for both atrial and ventricular tachycardia). Older age at surgery was significantly associated with the risk of tachyarrhythmias (P = 0.022). Bradyarrhythmia occurred in 12 (21.8%) patients and consisted of perioperative AV block (n = 5), late AV block (n = 1), and sinus node dysfunction (n = 6). Nine (16.4%) patients underwent catheter ablation. The mechanisms of atrial arrhythmias include cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent and surgical scar-dependent intra-atrial reentrant tachycardias. Among the three patients who underwent ablation for ventricular tachycardia, all circuits were dependent on the scar at the base of the right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit. Median survival free from any event (arrhythmia, death, or heart failure) was 31.6 (28.1–35.1) years after Rastelli surgery. Conclusions: The prevalence of arrhythmias late after Rastelli surgery is substantial and increases in the second decade after surgery. Older age at surgery is associated with a higher prevalence of arrhythmias.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".