ArticleHeart and vessels2019
Mid-term outcomes of individualized surgeries in patients with Ebstein's anomaly.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The variable anatomy of Ebstein's anomaly leads to its various surgical procedures. The long-term outcomes of different operations were not well established. Thirty-five patients with Ebstein's anomaly who underwent operations from 2006 to 2018 in our department were retrospectively reviewed. Individualized surgical plans were performed according to the preoperative echocardiography and surgeons' preference. Tricuspid repair, either Danielson's or Carpentier's technique, was the primary choice in patients who had sufficient tricuspid leaflets and adequate right ventricle, while tricuspid replacement was used when a reliable repair is not achievable. Additional bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt was performed in those who had unstable hemodynamics despite of high central venous pressure after separation from cardiopulmonary bypass. The perioperative and follow-up data were collected. The age was 26.9 (0.6-54) years [16 children (age < 14, and 19 adults (age ≥ 14)]. Preoperative tricuspid regurgitation was severe in 30, moderate in 4, and mild in the remaining 1 patient. Preoperative cardiac-associated malformations include 20 atrial septal defects, 2 ventricular septal defects, 2 pulmonary stenosis, and 1 sub aortic ridge, and these were operated simultaneously. Among all the surgical patients, 2 needed additional reoperation during the same admission, and ultimately, 29 patients had biventricular repair, including 21 tricuspid repair and 8 replacements. The other 6 patients had cavopulmonary connection and achieved 1.5 ventricular repair (3 tricuspid repair and 3 replacements). In all the 24 tricuspid repair patients, Danielson's procedure was used in 17, while Carpentier's technique was used in the other 7 patients. The average cardiopulmonary bypass time was 90 ± 28 min and cross-clamp time was 48 ± 24min. There were 2 perioperative deaths (5.7%) and no third-degree atrioventricular block. The postoperative in hospital stay was 13.7 ± 9.6 days. In the 33 survivors who were followed up at a median of 29.2 months, 6 patients had severe tricuspid regurgitation, and 2 of them underwent tricuspid replacement. The 5-year freedom from severe tricuspid dysfunction or reoperation was 78.5%, and no difference was found between children and adults, neither between different surgical choices. The surgeries of Ebstein's anomaly were variable, and individualized operation achieved reasonable short- and mid-term results. However, severe tricuspid regurgitation during the follow-up was not neglectable, and reoperation in such cases also achieved good outcomes. New repair strategy such as cone repair may be considered.
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.