Back

Effect of Digoxin on Interstage Outcomes following Stage I Palliation for Functionally Univentricular Hearts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

loomba, r.; Rausa, J.; flores, s.; villarreal, e.; Farias, J. S.

2022-05-04 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2022.05.04.22274522 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of digoxin on outcomes following stage I palliation for functionally univentricular hearts. Data SourcesWe conducted electronic searches of PubMed, Ovid and Cochrane. Study SelectionInclusion criteria included publication dates 1970-2018, children with functionally univentricular hearts between stage I and stage II palliation who received digoxin were compared to those who did not. Data ExtractionWe identified 148 unique citations; 5 full-text articles were included in the final review. Data from 4 studies was pooled for meta-analysis. Data SynthesisA total of 4 studies with 1,498 patients were included in the final analyses. Patient enrollment occurred between 2003 and 2013. A majority of patients were born full-term and approximately 25% were diagnosed with a syndrome. The most common cardiac diagnosis was hypoplastic left heart syndrome (70%). The most common initial surgical palliation was the Norwood procedure with a right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit. The total amount of deaths was 121 (12 digoxin group versus 109 no digoxin group). The interstage mortality was reduced in the digoxin group [OR 0.25(95% CI 0.14 to 0.47)]. There was no statistically significant difference in the presence of arrhythmias or other complications. ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that digoxin significantly decreases interstage period mortality with a concurrent significant decrease in weight for age. The odds of arrhythmia or other complications are not significantly different with digoxin based on current data.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.