ArticleJACC. Advances2024
How Good Are Cardiologists at Predicting Major Adverse Events in Fontan Patients?
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Life and Death: A Multicenter Study Evaluating Cardiologists' Approach to Difficult Conversations with Fontan Patients and Families.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
- Correlation between Olink and SomaScan proteomics platforms in adults with a Fontan circulation.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Blood Biomarkers as a Non-Invasive Method for the Assessment of the State of the Fontan Circulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- "Doc, Am I a Good Fontan?" Well, I Guess We Don't Really Know….JACC. Advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is unknown how well cardiologists predict which Fontan patients are at risk for major adverse events (MAEs). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of cardiologists' ability to identify the "good Fontan" patient, free from MAE within the following year, and compare that predicted risk cohort to patients who experienced MAE. Methods: This prospective, multicenter study included patients ≥10 years with lateral tunnel or extracardiac Fontan. The cardiologist was asked the yes/no "surprise" question: would you be surprised if your patient has a MAE in the next year? After 12 months, the cardiologist was surveyed to assess MAE. Agreement between cardiologist predictions of MAE and observed MAE was determined using the simple kappa coefficient. Multivariable generalized linear mixed effects models were performed to identify factors associated with MAE. Results: Overall, 146 patients were enrolled, and 99/146 (68%) patients w`ere predicted to be a "good Fontan." After 12 months, 17 (12%) experienced a MAE. The simple kappa coefficient of cardiologists' prediction was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.02-0.32), suggesting prediction of MAE was 17% better than random chance. In the multivariable cardiologist-predicted MAE (N = 47) model, diuretic/beta-blocker use ( Conclusions: Cardiologists are marginally able to predict which Fontan patients are at risk for MAE over a year. There was overlap between factors associated with a cardiologist's prediction of risk and observed MAE, namely the use of diuretic/beta-blocker.
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.