ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
The impact of congenital heart disease on somatic growth: a monozygotic twin study.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Achieving Protein Requirements Through Oral Feeding in Children with Congenital Heart Disease: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cortical structure alterations in toddlers with different severities of congenital heart disease: a cross-sectional study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Pediatric heart failure in the era of cardio-immunology: inflammatory-immune context phenotypes, diagnosis, and targeted management.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children with congenital heart disease (CHD) often experience growth faltering. However, somatic growth is significantly influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Given the unique genetic and environmental similarities of monozygotic twins, this study aims to evaluate the relationship between CHD and growth faltering, while minimizing the influence of these factors. We retrospectively reviewed data from 41 pairs of twins, where one had CHD and the other did not. Anthropometric measures were collected from birth to 3 years of age. Growth differences within the CHD group were further analyzed based on disease characteristics, including cyanosis, pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH), heart failure (HF), and ventricular physiology. Mixed-effects regression models assessed longitudinal differences between twins, and multiple linear regression analyses identified predictors of anthropometric z-scores at 1 year. The CHD group showed a significant decline in all growth parameters from 1 year of age (p < .001), with no significant improvement during the observation period. Growth faltering was more common in the CHD group (46.3%) compared to the non-CHD group (7.5%). Within the CHD group, children with HF had significantly lower weight for age z-score and height for age z-score (p < .05). Being small for gestational age (SGA) independently predicted lower weight and head circumference at 1 year.Conclusion: Children with CHD are at an elevated risk of growth faltering. HF and SGA appear to contribute to growth faltering, highlighting the importance of early recognition and targeted interventions. What is Known Children with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at increased risk for growth faltering, but the independent effect of CHD is not well established. What is New This twin study aims to control genetic and environmental factors, showing that CHD is associated with lower growth and an increased risk of growth faltering. Among affected twins, growth outcomes also vary by disease and clinical characteristics.
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.