MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408877949 · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2024-003054

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on rates of congenital heart disease procedures among children: prospective cohort analyses of 26 270 procedures in 17 860 children using CVD-COVID-UK consortium record linkage data

2025· article· en· W4408877949 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arun S Karthikeyan, Rachel Denholm, Sonya V. Babu‐Narayan, Shubhra Sinha, Șerban Stoica, Tim Dong, Cathie Sudlow, Venexia Walker, Kate Brown, Massimo Caputo, Debbie A. Lawlor

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Heart · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBarts Health NHS TrustKeele UniversityQueen's UniversityCardiff Metropolitan UniversitySwansea UniversityUniversity of AberdeenCardiff UniversityRoyal College of Surgeons of EnglandUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of DundeeUniversity of WarwickUniversity of LeicesterCancer Research UKUniversity College LondonLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceBritish Heart FoundationRoyal Free London NHS Foundation TrustUniversity of LeedsQueen Mary University of LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham CharityKing's College LondonSwansea Bay University Health BoardQueen's University BelfastUniversity of BristolUniversity of ExeterNHS Health ScotlandImperial College London
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PediatricsEmergency medicineDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated major reallocation of healthcare services. Our aim was to assess the impact on paediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) procedures during different pandemic periods compared with the prepandemic period, to inform appropriate responses to future major health services disruptions. Methods and results We analysed 26 270 procedures from 17 860 children between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2022 in England, linking them to primary/secondary care data. The study period included prepandemic and pandemic phases, with the latter including three restriction periods and corresponding relaxation periods. We compared procedure characteristics and outcomes between each pandemic period and the prepandemic period. There was a reduction in all procedures across all pandemic periods, with the largest reductions during the first, most severe restriction period (23 March 2020 to 23 June 2020), and the relaxation period following second restrictions (3 December 2020 to 4 January 2021) coinciding with winter pressures. During the first restrictions, median procedures per week dropped by 51 compared with the prepandemic period (80 vs 131 per week, p=4.98×10 −08 ). Elective procedures drove these reductions, falling from 96 to 44 per week (p=1.89×10 −06 ), while urgent (28 vs 27 per week, p=0.649) and life-saving/emergency procedures (7 vs 6 per week, p=0.198) remained unchanged. Cardiac surgery rates increased, and catheter-based procedure rates reduced during the pandemic. Procedures for children under 1 year were prioritised, especially during the first four pandemic periods. No evidence was found for differences in postprocedure complications (age-adjusted OR 1.1 (95% CI 0.9, 1.4)) or postprocedure mortality (age and case mix adjusted OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.6, 1.3)). Conclusions Prioritisation of urgent, emergency and life-saving procedures during the pandemic, particularly in infants, did not impact paediatric CHD postprocedure complications or mortality. This information is valuable for future major health services disruptions, though longer-term follow-up of the effects of delaying elective surgery is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen HeartSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207