Long-Term Outcomes of Fontan Patients With an Extracardiac Conduit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although Fontan palliation improves survival, it poses a large burden of lifelong morbidity. In extracardiac Fontan (ECF) patients, for example, conduit stenosis developing over time has been associated with Fontan failure and other adverse outcomes. This systematic review, for the first time, synthesized existing data on various long-term outcomes of ECF patients, including change in conduit and associated outcomes. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane indexes from inception to 2023 and included studies reporting separate results for ECF patients with a follow-up time of at least 3 years. Full-text studies were assessed for risk of bias. We summarised information on the study, patient characteristics, and outcomes narratively and with the use of descriptive tables. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled incidence rates of adverse events. RESULTS: We included 61 full-text studies, with most studies published after 2009 (77.0%) and using a retrospective cohort design (76.2%). The pooled incidence rates per 100 person-years were for arrhythmia 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.6), thrombotic events 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.4), protein-losing enteropathy 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-1.0), conduit obstruction 0.7 (95% CI 0.3-1.5), reoperation 1.9 (95% CI 1.1-3.4), and late death 0.3 (95% CI 0.2-0.5). The ranges of hemodynamic and exercise parameters and findings from studies reporting changes in conduit size and liver disease were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although many studies have largely focused on long-term survival, several other adverse outcomes require further research to develop consensus-based definitions and approaches for evaluations, especially as the ECF population ages. (PROSPERO: CRD42024533080).
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".