ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Clinical outcomes of right ventricular outflow tract stenting compared to surgical shunting in late-presenting children.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. 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.
- Pulmonary Artery Growth Among Duct-Dependent Physiology After Ductal Stenting Compared to Modified Blalock-Taussig Shunt: Insights from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- Dramatic Remodeling of Hypoplastic Pulmonary Arteries by Pulmonary Valve Opening, Right Ventricular Outflow Stenting, and Aortopulmonary Collateral Lung Territory Incorporation.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Urgent right ventricular outflow tract stenting in a dual risks of thrombosis and bleeding in uncorrected adult with cyanotic congenital heart disease: a case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Editorial: Pediatric and perinatal cardiology: insights, advances and updates.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Main branches pulmonary artery stenting in congenital heart diseases: a case series.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Left ventricular outflow tract stenting in late presenting transposition physiology with ventricular shunt and pulmonary stenosis: a case series.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) stenting as an alternative palliation for patients with stenotic RVOTs is increasingly recognized. However, a notable gap remains in the literature regarding the efficacy and the comparative outcomes between RVOT stenting and the modified Blalock-Taussig shunt (mBTS) in children older than one year. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of clinical data from patients aged one year to 18 years with stenotic RVOTs who underwent RVOT stenting or mBTS procedures at our institution between December 2019 and October 2022. We compared major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including re-hospitalization, re-intervention, and mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay, and discharge oxygen saturation between the groups. Results: We identified 58 patients (51.7% male) with a median age of 2.6 years (IQR: 2-8.1) and a median weight of 9.7 kg (IQR: 7.5-17.5). Among them, 18 (31%) patients received RVOT stenting, and 40 (68.9%) patients had mBTS. The median age for the RVOT stenting group was 92.5 months (IQR: 31.2-152) compared to 26.5 months (IQR: 23.0-54.0) for the mBTS group ( Conclusions: RVOT stenting as palliation to stenotic RVOTs in children older than one year demonstrated outcomes comparable to mBTS in terms of MACE and achieving oxygen saturation targets.
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.