ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
External Validation of a Risk Score Model for Predicting Major Clinical Events in Adults After Atrial Switch.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. 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.
- Safety and Efficacy of Dapagliflozin in Patients With Systemic Right Ventricular Dysfunction: DAPA-SRV Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA risk model has been proposed to provide a patient individualized estimation of risk for major clinical events (heart failure events, ventricular arrhythmia, all-cause mortality) in patients with transposition of the great arteries and atrial switch surgery. We aimed to externally validate the model. METHODS AND
resultsA retrospective, multicentric, longitudinal cohort of 417 patients with transposition of the great arteries (median age, 24 years at baseline [interquartile range, 18-30]; 63% men) independent of the model development and internal validation cohort was studied. The performance of the prediction model in predicting risk at 5 years was assessed, and additional predictors of major clinical events were evaluated separately in our cohort. Twenty-five patients (5.9%) met the major clinical events end point within 5 years. Model validation showed good discrimination between high and low 5-year risk patients (Harrell C index of 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]) but tended to overestimate this risk (calibration slope of 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03-0.36]). In our population, the strongest independent predictors of major clinical events were a history of heart failure and at least mild impairment of the subpulmonary left ventricle function.
conclusionsWe reported the first external validation of a major clinical events risk model in a large cohort of adults with transposition of the great arteries. The model allows for distinguishing patients at low risk from those at intermediate to high risk. Previous episode of heart failure and subpulmonary left ventricle dysfunction appear to be key markers in the prognosis of patients. Further optimizing risk models are needed to individualize risk predictions in patients with transposition of the great arteries.
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.