ArticlePediatric cardiology2017
Anatomic Repair of Congenitally Corrected Transposition of the Great Arteries: Single-Center Intermediate-Term Experience.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congenitally Corrected Transposition of the Great Arteries: Mid-term Outcomes of Different Surgical Strategies.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- The variability in pattern, presentation, and outcomes in the management of congenital corrected transposition of the great artery (ccTGA): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present our experience for patients who have undergone an anatomic repair (AR) for congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (CCTGA) at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin. A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent AR for CCTGA from 2001 to 2015 was performed. The cohort consisted of 15 patients (74% male). Median age of anatomic repair was 15 months (range 4.5-45.6 months). Four patients had a bidirectional Glenn (BDG) prior to AR. At the time of AR,-9 (60%) underwent Senning/Rastelli procedure, 4 (26.6%) had double switch operation, and 2 (13.3%) underwent only Senning with VSD closure. Median duration of follow-up was 5.5 years (0.05-14 years). Reoperations prior to discharge included BDG, revision of pulmonary venous baffle, closure of residual VSD, and pacemaker placement. Late reoperations included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction repair, conduit replacement, melody valve placement, and pacemaker implantation. At their most recent follow-up, no patient had heart failure symptoms and only 1 had severely diminished function that improved with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Moderate mitral regurgitation was noted in 15% (2/13), and severe in 7% (1/13). Moderate tricuspid regurgitation was noted in 15% (2/13). One patient, 7% (1/13), developed moderate aortic insufficiency. There was a 100% survival at the time of the most recent follow-up. Patients with CCTGA who have undergone AR have excellent functional status and mid-term survival but reinterventions are common. Longer term studies are needed to determine both the extent and spectrum of reinterventions as well as long term survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.