ReviewPediatric cardiology2020
Prenatally Diagnosed Congenital Ventricular Outpouchings: An Institutional Experience and Review of the Literature.
Review in Pediatric cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unique Prenatal Diagnosis of a Coronary Sinus Aneurysm.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Ambulatory Fetal Heart Rate and Rhythm Monitoring for Pregnancies at Risk for Fetal Arrhythmias: Perspectives from the Fetal Heart Society.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- Characteristics and outcomes of fetal ventricular aneurysm and diverticulum: combining the use of a new technique, fetal HQ.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Left ventricular diverticulum vs. ventricular septal defect vs. ventricular aneurysm.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- A Japanese Patient with Genitopatellar Syndrome Transiently Presenting with Cardiac Intramural Cavity during the Neonatal Period.Case reports in genetics · 2020Article
- [Ventricular diverticulum in Cantrell´s pentalogy: rare but not isolated entities].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital ventricular outpouchings (CVOs) are rare congenital heart defects with limited data regarding prognosis and outcomes. We aimed to describe the characteristics, outcomes and factors associated with morbidity and mortality of prenatally diagnosed CVOs using our institutional experience and a review of published cases. A total of 86 cases of prenatally diagnosed CVOs were identified, including 3 from our institution and 83 cases identified from a review of the literature. Fetal and postnatal outcomes were analyzed for each case. Pericardial effusions (44%) and ventricular dysfunction (17%) were the most common associated findings. Excluding cases that resulted in pregnancy termination, mortality was 17%, with the majority (11/13) occurring in the prenatal period. Factors associated with mortality included an outpouching located on the left ventricle, a diagnosis of hydrops fetalis, the presence of a pericardial effusion, and an earlier gestational age at diagnosis. Of those that survived to delivery, 57% remained asymptomatic without the need for intervention, and the outpouching regressed or resolved in an additional 15%. Prenatally diagnosed congenital ventricular outpouchings are a dynamic form of congenital heart disease with a high fetal mortality rate. The outcomes associated with the outpouchings appear to be the most variable in the prenatal period and the first year after birth. Serial prenatal and postnatal evaluations should be performed to evaluate for a change in the characteristics of the outpouching.
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.