MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fontan Patients With a Systemic Left Ventricle Have Greater Exercise Capacity Than Those With a Systemic Right Ventricle: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410276423 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Anderson-Bell, Emily A. Hardison, Muddassir Rashid, Benjamin Hammond, Daniel Ziebell, Michelle Ploutz, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricleCardiologyInternal medicineFontan procedureSystemic circulationMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intro: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has emerged as a useful metric to track the health of the Fontan patients. There is clinical utility in understanding the role of ventricular morphology, as this could influence how CPET results are interpreted in Fontan patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the CPET capacity of left ventricle (LV) over right ventricle (RV) morphology among Fontan patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2024. Inclusion criteria were 1) interventional and observational studies, 2) presence of Fontan circuit, 3) CPET via treadmill or cycle ergometer, and 4) separation of outcomes of interest by systemic ventricle. Outcomes of interest were VO2 max, O2 pulse, VE/VCO2 slope, VO2 at anaerobic threshold (VAT), and maximum heart rate. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Measure of effects were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (MD) where applicable along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta analysis was performed using a random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model. Results: A total of 20 out of 1368 studies met criteria. This included 50% retrospective cohort studies, 35% cross-sectional, 10% randomized control trials, and 5% pre-experimental design with 1,473 total participants (59.4% male, 57.7% systemic left/mixed ventricles, 30% treadmill). Patients with morphologic left/mixed versus right ventricles showed a significantly greater VO2 max of 0.40 (95% CI 0.20, 0.9; n=17; I2=51%) and O2 pulse of 0.29 (0.10, 0.49; n=6; I2=6%) as well as a significantly lower VE/VCO2 slope by -3.14 (-5.06, -1.23; n=8; I2=66%). There was an increase in VAT by 0.12 (-0.03, 0.27; N=9; I2=0%) and max HR by 7.63 bpm (-0.95, 16.20; N=7; I2=78%) in LV compared to RV, however these did not achieve statistical significance. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that Fontan patients with a systemic left ventricle have superior exercise capacity and stroke volume with less dead space ventilation as compared to those with a systemic right ventricle given the greater VO2 max and O2 pulse with a decreased VE/VCO2 slope. Limitations to this analysis include the exclusion of abstract-only data and an inability to include data from studies reporting no difference between ventricles but without corresponding data, which likely biased these results away from the null. Time from Fontan procedure was also unable to be evaluated. These findings support the need for further research into the clinical differences between Fontan patients with a systemic left versus right ventricle.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.034
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→