Fetal Surgery for Congenital Heart Diseases: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital heart diseases (CHD) are the most common congenital anomalies, and fetal cardiac interventions (FCI) have been developed to improve perinatal outcomes. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the effects of FCI on CHD. We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2025 without language restrictions. References of included studies and prior reviews were also screened. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; ID CRD42024599628). Eligible studies included observational cohorts evaluating intrauterine procedures for CHD. Data were synthesized using random effects models in RStudio (version 4.2.2), and study quality was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies (NOS). Twelve studies including 485 fetuses with CHD were analyzed. The pooled overall survival rate after fetal cardiac intervention was 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.8–73.3), with survival ranging from 20.0% to 90.2% across studies. The pooled perinatal mortality rate was 31.5% (95% CI 21.0–44.2), with estimates ranging from 9.8% to 66.7%. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for both outcomes ( I 2 > 75%). FCI for CHD are associated with moderate overall survival but substantial perinatal mortality. Standardized protocols, refined patient selection, and multicenter collaboration are needed to improve outcomes and guide clinical decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".