DOI 10.1007/s00246-025-03950-1
Comparison of Arrhythmia Prevalence and Incidence in Adult Patients with Lateral Tunnel and Extra-Cardiac Fontan Circulation.
Аннотация
Although patients with total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) Fontan are known to have a lower incidence of arrhythmias compared with atriopulmonary Fontan, there is debate about long-term prevalence of arrhythmia in the TCPC population or about the differences in arrhythmia burden between patients with lateral tunnel (LT) and extra-cardiac (EC) Fontan circulations. A retrospective cohort of 341 patients with LT and EC Fontan operations was identified in a single adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) center. Arrhythmias and related procedures were recorded. Logistic regression was used to determine factors affecting arrhythmia prevalence. Arrhythmia incidence was compared using interval-censored Cox regression. Of 341 patients, 254 (74.5%) had LT Fontan and 87 (25.5%) had EC Fontan. Patients with LT Fontan were older at their last ACHD follow-up (29 versus 25 years). Arrhythmia occurred in 52.2% of patients, 57.9% of the LT and 35.6% of the EC Fontan group. Compared to EC Fontan patients, patients with LT were both more likely to have an arrhythmia (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.24) and at a higher risk of developing a new arrhythmia (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10-2.54). Patients with LT had more cardioversions, ablations, and revisions compared with EC Fontan patients. However, a similar proportion in each group were treated with antiarrhythmics and had a pacemaker. We summarize arrhythmia burden in a large single-center adult cohort of patients with TCPC Fontan, demonstrating increased arrhythmia in patients with LT. This work can inform screening protocols and risk assessment for this growing population.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.