ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
Ventricular Mechanics in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: An Echocardiography and Cardiac Computed Tomography Comparison Study.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) and cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are at risk for ventricular dysfunction. Cine cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is increasingly used for functional assessment, but its reproducibility among observers has not been described in this population. Patients who underwent CCT and echocardiogram within a 3-month interval without intervening intervention were reviewed. Inter-observer and inter-modality agreement for left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF), qualitative right ventricular (RV) size and function, and presence of dyssynchrony were measured using kappa statistic and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The study included 72 patients. There was excellent inter-observer agreement for LV volumes and LVEF by both echocardiography and CCT and moderate inter-modality agreement for all LV measurements. In patients with functional single ventricles, there was excellent inter-observer agreement for LV volumes and LVEF (ICC 0.99) by CCT and moderate agreement for LVEF by echocardiography (ICC 0.67). There was moderate agreement in RV size (κ = 0.70) and strong agreement in systolic function (κ = 0.83) by echocardiography and strong agreement in RV size (κ = 0.81) and excellent agreement in systolic function (κ = 0.96) by CCT. Dyssynchrony was observed in more than half of patients by CCT, with excellent inter-observer agreement for septal flash (κ = 0.99). In patients with CHD and CIEDs, CCT provides highly reproducible estimates of ventricular size and function, with stronger inter-observer agreement than echocardiography in patients with single ventricles and RV assessment. Septal flash may have utility as a qualitative marker of dyssynchrony in patients with CIEDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790188What 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.