IMR Press / RCM / Volume 23 / Issue 11 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2311376
Open Access Original Research
Machine Learning Model for Predicting Risk of In-Hospital Mortality after Surgery in Congenital Heart Disease Patients
Show Less
1 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 200127 Shanghai, China
2 Information Center, Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, 200127 Shanghai, China
3 Shanghai Synyi Medical Technology Co., Ltd. 201203 Shanghai, China
*Correspondence: luzhaohui@scmc.com.cn (Zhaohui Lu)
These authors contributed equally.
Academic Editor: Jerome L. Fleg
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23(11), 376; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2311376
Submitted: 24 May 2022 | Revised: 27 July 2022 | Accepted: 26 August 2022 | Published: 3 November 2022
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract

Background: A machine learning model was developed to estimate the in-hospital mortality risk after congenital heart disease (CHD) surgery in pediatric patient. Methods: Patients with CHD who underwent surgery were included in the study. A Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model was constructed based onsurgical risk stratification and preoperative variables to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality. We compared the predictive value of the XGBoost model with Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery-1 (RACHS-1) and Society of Thoracic Surgery-European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (STS-EACTS) categories. Results: A total of 24,685 patients underwent CHD surgery and 595 (2.4%) died in hospital. The area under curve (AUC) of the STS-EACTS and RACHS-1 risk stratification scores were 0.748 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.707–0.789, p < 0.001] and 0.677 (95% CI: 0.627–0.728, p < 0.001), respectively. Our XGBoost model yielded the best AUC (0.887, 95% CI: 0.866–0.907, p < 0.001), and sensitivity and specificity were 0.785 and 0.824, respectively. The top 10 variables that contribute most to the predictive performance of the machine learning model were saturation of pulse oxygen categories, risk categories, age, preoperative mechanical ventilation, atrial shunt, pulmonary insufficiency, ventricular shunt, left atrial dimension, a history of cardiac surgery, numbers of defects. Conclusions: The XGBoost model was more accurate than RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS in predicting in-hospital mortality after CHD surgery in China.

Keywords
congenital heart disease
in-hospital mortality
machine learning
Extreme Gradient Boosting
1. Introduction

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital malformations. The prevalence of CHD at birth is about 75–90/10,000 for live births and total pregnancies, with CHD occurring in approximately 1% of live births and 10% of aborted fetuses [1, 2]. In addition, CHD is the leading cause of mortality in children with birth defects [3] and affects 0.7% children born in China [4]. The risk of mortality in Chinese children with CHD has been increasing [5].

Surgery has been the cornerstone in the treatment of patients with CHD [6]. Without interventions, patients with CHD will experience significant mortality. In developed countries, surgery has greatly improved the outcome of patients with CHD and significantly reduced the mortality rate [7]. However, approximately 20% children who undergo surgery for pediatric CHD are readmitted within 30 days, and 4.2% patients who undergo surgery for CHD die [8, 9]. Early mortality after cardiac surgery in the neonatal period is approximately 10% [1].

Risk of death in CHD patients is associated with complexity of surgical procedures [10]. Accurate prediction of in-hospital death is important to facilitate clinical decisions-making for the performance of certain procedures and improve patient’s outcome [11]. Several major risk stratification categories are currently available for the prediction of mortality and morbidity in children undergoing surgery for CHD—Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery-1 (RACHS-1) [12], Aristotles Basic Complexity, and Aristotles Comprehensive Complexity [13], Society of Thoracic Surgery-European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (STS-EACTS) Congenital Heart Surgery (STAT) Mortality Categories [14]. These risk adjustment categories have been developed based on projections of risk or complexity and heavily rely on expert experience and consensus [15]. These traditional tools focus on surgical procedure categories and do not include sufficient individual patient risk factors. Therefore, it may have lower predictive accuracy for individual patients. The prognosis should be determined by combined analysis of multiple features. Thus, it is of great clinical significance to build a prediction model that includes multiple important clinical features.

Some studies have shown performance of machine learning-assisted tools were better than standard scoring systems [16, 17]. Machine learning has the advantage of flexibility and scalability compared to traditional biostatistical methods [18]. It is well suited for complex multidimensional data and may uncover interactions that hard to be identified and illustrated through classic statistical analysis [19]. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) is a machine learning algorithm. It is an implementation of Gradient Boosting that was originally started as a research project by Tianqi Chen as part of the Distributed (Deep) Machine Learning Community (DMLC) group at the University of Washington [20]. Currently being the fastest and the best open source boosting tree toolkit, XGBoost has made many optimizations, such as significant improvements in model training speed and accuracy. Kilic evaluated the predictive performance of XGBoost model for risk of death after cardiac surgery, and found that the XGBoost model was superior in predictive performance compared to Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score [21]. Zeng et al. [22] showed that a XGBoost model has better prediction performance for predicting postoperative complications than other traditional risk adjustment models after paediatric cardiac surgery. However, research on the application of machine learning model for the prediction of mortality risk in children with CHD is lacking, especially in China.

The aim of the study was to establish and validate a XGBoost model for predicting the in-hospital mortality risk in pediatric CHD surgery, and to compare the predictive value of the XGBoost model with the RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS categories.

2. Methods
2.1 Study Design and Population

Patients aged 0–18 years who were diagnosed with CHD and underwent CHD surgery at Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2017 were included. For patients with multiple surgical records within a month, only the information of the last surgical record was extracted, and the previous surgical records were regarded as “operation history”. The exclusion criteria included general thoracic surgery (not involving cardiac surgery), patients with incomplete or missing in-hospital survival records, and surgical procedures that were performed in less than 3 patients. Our study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University. As our study only involved a retrospective review of previous clinical data, the requirement for informed consent was waived.

2.2 Data Source and Extraction

The database was constructed by merging information from multiple data sources, including the laboratory information management system, hospital information system, intensive care unit database, clinical data repository, and the surgical record database of the cardiac surgery department in Shanghai Children’s Medical Center. We built a feature engineering pipeline to load and transform clinical data during and before CHD surgery for each individual. The collected data were divided into five categories as follows: (i) demographic data, such as sex, body mass index, and age; (ii) preoperative clinical factors, including diagnosis, numbers of defects, pulse oxygen saturation, a history of cardiac surgery (any prior cardiac surgeries), numbers of defects, non-cardiac malformations, and other risk factors; (iii) complexity of the CHD surgery according to RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS morbidity categories; (iv) cardiac Doppler ultrasound data; and (v) preoperative laboratory test results, including routine blood test findings, liver function test results, and coagulation index. Variables with more than 30% missing values were excluded.

2.3 In-Hospital Mortality and Estimation of Mortality Rates

The study endpoint was in-hospital mortality, defined as death due to any cause during hospitalization after surgery. The cause of death was defined as the disease, situation, or occurrence that causes a series of events, ultimately result in death [23]. And the cause of death in this study included cardiac, peri-operative, vascular and non-cardiovascular causes. Cardiac deaths included sudden death, documented ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, infective endocarditis and myocardial infarction [23, 24]. Vascular death included haemorrhage, stroke, rupture of aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, and dissection [23, 24]. Non-cardiovascular death included malignancy, pneumonia, sepsis (excluding endocarditis), other infections, peritonitis, hip fracture, renal failure, suicide, and unknown [23, 24].

Mortality risk stratification was performed by classifying the procedures into clusters based on estimated mortality, following the statistical method proposed by a previous study [14]. First, we used a Bayesian random effect model to calculate the posterior probability distribution of the mortality rates of all procedures. Second, a homogeneity criterion was used to evaluate a partition scheme, which measured the within-category homogeneity of the mortality rates. The optimal partition solution to maximize the homogeneity criterion can be achieved using a dynamic programming algorithm. Finally, we successively performed the abovementioned calculations for 2–20 categories to determine the number of categories. The optimal category number was determined using of the Bayesian information criterion, a trade-off between homogeneity and partition complexity. All procedures were finally categorized into five relatively homogeneous categories. According to the pseudo-code algorithm description (see Appendix of the previous study) [14] we implemented handcrafted codes of the stratification computation pipeline using Python language (version 3.7.6, Python Software Foundation, Wilmington, DE, USA).

2.4 Construction of an In-Hospital Death Predictive Model Using a Machine Learning Algorithm

We used the XGBoost algorithm to build a in-hospital mortality predictive model for children with CHD. Dataset was devided into training set and testing set according to the 7.5:2.5 ratio. The training dataset was used for feature selection and model training, while the testing dataset was used for validation after model training. The importance of each feature was assessed using the recursive feature elimination (RFE) algorithm, and all features were sorted based on their level of importance. The RFE algorithm was used to recursively remove features and build a model on the remaining features. Among all possible combination of features, the model with the highest AUC was determined and the features included are eventually selected to build the XGBoost model. Furthermore, Grid Search was used to adjust the hyperparameters of model to reduce overfitting and improve the model accuracy. The stability of the model is tested by Bootstrap algorithm with random resampling of the samples, and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was exported. Finally, we assessed the predictive power of the model using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Fig. 1 presents the whole process described above. The XGBoost was developed in Python language (version 3.7.6) with main packages scikit-learn (version 0.23.1) and XGBoost (version 1.1.1).

Fig. 1.

Steps in the XGBoost model development.

2.5 Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are described as the median (range); all were non-normally distributed. Categorical variables are described using frequency (%). To assess the distributive balance between the training and validation sets, comparisons between groups were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test, and the chi-square test, as appropriate. The Area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to evaluate the predictive power. In addition, the optimal threshold was chosen by maximizing the Youden Index. The sensitivity and specificity of the predictive model were obtained based on the threshold. All statistical tests were two sided, and p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), version 4.2.0.

3. Results
3.1 Characteristics and Stratification of Surgical Procedure

A total of 24,685 patients underwent surgery for CHD were included (Table 1). The mean age of the patients was 316 (1–6568) days, and 14,215 (57.59%) patients were male. A total of 591 (2.4%) in-hospital deaths occurred. Other patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.Demographic and preoperative characteristics of patients.
Parameter Training set n = 18552 Testing set n = 6133 Total n = 24685
Death n = 442 Non-death n = 18110 Total n = 18552 p-value Death n = 149 Non-death n = 5984 Total n = 6133 p-value
Age (days)* Median (range) 168 (2,6459) 323 (1,6568) 317 (1,6568) <0.001 153 (1,4716) 319 (2,6410) 313 (1,6410) <0.001 316 (1,6568)
<365 days 329 (74.4%) 9681 (53.5%) 10010 (54.0%) <0.001 112 (75.2%) 3205 (53.6%) 3317 (54.2%) <0.001 13327 (54.0%)
365 days to 1095 days 51 (11.5%) 4600 (25.4%) 4651 (25.1%) 19 (12.8%) 1493 (25.0%) 1512 (24.7%) 6163 (25.0%)
>1095 days 62 (14.0%) 3812 (21.1%) 3874 (20.9%) 18 (12.1%) 1276 (21.45) 1294 (21.1%) 5168 (21.0%)
Sex* Male 278 (62.9%) 10342 (57.11%) 10620 (57.24%) 0.015 81 (54.36%) 3514 (58.72%) 3595 (58.62%) 0.286 14215 (57.59%)
Female 164 (37.1%) 7768 (42.89%) 7932 (42.76%) 68 (45.64%) 2470 (41.28%) 2538 (41.38%) 10470 (42.41%)
BMI* <P5 percentile 82 (20.55%) 3077 (19.26%) 3159 (19.29%) 0.494 34 (25.19%) 1066 (20.14%) 1100 (20.26%) 0.122 4259 (19.53%)
P5–P95 percentile 252 (63.16%) 10539 (65.97%) 10791 (65.9%) 75 (55.56%) 3395 (64.13%) 3470 (63.92%) 14261 (65.41%)
>P95 percentile 65 (16.29%) 2360 (14.77%) 2425 (14.81%) 26 (19.26%) 833 (15.73%) 859 (15.82%) 3284 (15.06%)
A history of cardiac surgery 0 311 (70.4%) 16323 (90.1%) 16634 (89.7%) <0.001 103 (69.1%) 5364 (89.6%) 5467 (89.1%) <0.001 22101 (89.5%)
1 122 (27.6%) 1663 (9.2%) 1785 (9.6%) 44 (29.5%) 583 (9.7%) 627 (10.2%) 2412 (9.8%)
>2 9 (2.0%) 124 (0.7%) 133 (0.7%) 2 (1.3%) 37 (0.6%) 39 (0.6%) 172 (0.7%)
Preoperative ICU admission 0 429 (97.1%) 17530 (96.8%) 17959 (96.8%) 0.758 141 (94.6%) 5755 (96.2%) 5896 (96.1%) 0.335 23855 (96.6%)
1 13 (2.9%) 580 (3.2%) 593 (3.2%) 8 (5.4%) 229 (3.8%) 237 (3.9%) 830 (3.4%)
ABO blood type A 125 (29.9%) 5534 (30.87%) 5659 (30.85%) 0.919 44 (31.21%) 1840 (30.97%) 1884 (30.98%) 0.988 7543 (30.88%)
B 119 (28.47%) 4942 (27.57%) 5061 (27.59%) 38 (26.95%) 1654 (27.84%) 1692 (27.82%) 6753 (27.65%)
O 95 (22.73%) 4210 (23.49%) 4305 (23.47%) 34 (24.11%) 1366 (22.99%) 1400 (23.02%) 5705 (23.36%)
AB 79 (18.9%) 3238 (18.07%) 3317 (18.08%) 25 (17.73%) 1081 (18.2%) 1106 (18.18%) 4423 (18.11%)
RH blood type - 3 (0.72%) 77 (0.43%) 80 (0.44%) 0.431 0 (0%) 26 (0.44%) 26 (0.43%) >0.999 106 (0.43%)
+ 413 (99.28%) 17866 (99.57%) 18279 (99.56%) 140 (100%) 5904 (99.56%) 6044 (99.57%) 24323 (99.57%)
Premature No 437 (98.87%) 17960 (99.17%) 18397 (99.16%) 0.423 145 (97.32%) 5927 (99.05%) 6072 (99.01%) 0.06 24469 (99.12%)
Yes 5 (1.13%) 150 (0.83%) 155 (0.84%) 4 (2.68%) 57 (0.95%) 61 (0.99%) 216 (0.88%)
Non-cardiac malformation No 440 (99.55%) 18088 (99.88%) 18528 (99.87%) 0.111 149 (100%) 5982 (99.97%) 6131 (99.97%) >0.999 24659 (99.89%)
Yes 2 (0.45%) 22 (0.12%) 24 (0.13%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.03%) 2 (0.03%) 26 (0.11%)
Chromosome abnormality or syndrome No 438 (99.1%) 17920 (99.0%) 18358 (99.0%) >0.999 146 (98.0%) 5920 (98.9%) 6066 (98.9%) 0.222 24424 (98.9%)
Yes 4 (0.9%) 190 (1.0%) 194 (1.0%) 3 (2.0%) 64 (1.1%) 67 (1.1%) 261 (1.1%)
Allergy* No 436 (98.64%) 17522 (96.75%) 17958 (96.8%) 0.026 145 (97.32%) 5783 (96.64%) 5928 (96.66%) 0.819 23886 (96.76%)
Yes 6 (1.36%) 588 (3.25%) 594 (3.2%) 4 (2.68%) 201 (3.36%) 205 (3.34%) 799 (3.24%)
Special treatment before surgery* No 400 (90.5%) 17800 (98.29%) 18200 (98.1%) <0.001 136 (91.28%) 5876 (98.2%) 6012 (98.03%) <0.001 24212 (98.08%)
Yes 42 (9.5%) 310 (1.71%) 352 (1.9%) 13 (8.72%) 108 (1.8%) 121 (1.97%) 473 (1.92%)
Preoperative HCT* Low 19 (5.4%) 873 (5.84%) 892 (5.83%) <0.001 9 (6.87%) 327 (6.56%) 336 (6.57%) 0.069 1228 (6.02%)
Normal 285 (80.97%) 13580 (90.92%) 13865 (90.69%) 112 (85.5%) 4470 (89.7%) 4582 (89.6%) 18447 (90.41%)
High 48 (13.64%) 484 (3.24%) 532 (3.48%) 10 (7.63%) 186 (3.73%) 196 (3.83%) 728 (3.57%)
STS-EACTS categories* 1 111 (25.3%) 10359 (57.4%) 10470 (56.6%) <0.001 27 (18.2%) 3405 (57.0%) 3432 (56.1%) <0.001 13902 (56.5%)
2 120 (27.4%) 5074 (28.1%) 5194 (28.1%) 44 (29.7%) 1708 (28.6%) 1752 (28.6%) 6946 (28.2%)
3 117 (26.7%) 1407 (7.8%) 1524 (8.2%) 40 (27.0%) 443 (7.4%) 483 (7.9%) 2007 (8.2%)
4 80 (18.3%) 1198 (6.6%) 1278 (6.9%) 33 (22.3%) 409 (6.8%) 442 (7.2%) 1720 (7.0%)
5 10 (2.3%) 20 (0.1%) 30 (0.2%) 4 (2.7%) 6 (0.1%) 10 (0.2%) 40 (0.2%)
RACHS-1 categories 1 65 (14.7%) 3148 (17.4%) 3213 (17.3%) <0.001 19 (12.8%) 966 (16.1) 985 (16.1%) <0.001 4198 (17.0%)
2 161 (36.4%) 11341 (62.6%) 11502 (62.0%) 45 (30.2%) 3830 (64.0%) 3875 (63.2%) 15377 (62.3%)
3 152 (34.4%) 3124 (17.3%) 3276 (17.7%) 69 (46.3%) 1032 (17.2%) 1101 (18.0%) 4377 (17.7%)
4 50 (11.3%) 446 (2.5%) 496 (2.7%) 12 (8.1) 135 (2.3%) 147 (2.4%) 643 (2.6%)
5 8 (1.8%) 46 (0.3%) 54 (0.3%) 3 (2.0%) 20 (0.3%) 23 (0.4%) 77 (0.3%)
6 6 (1.4%) 5 (0.0%) 11 (0.1%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 13 (0.1%)
Risk stratification 1 28 (6.33%) 10605 (58.56%) 10633 (57.31%) <0.001 14 (9.4%) 3459 (57.8%) 3473 (56.63%) <0.001 14106 (57.14%)
2 87 (19.68%) 4399 (24.29%) 4486 (24.18%) 33 (22.15%) 1477 (24.68%) 1510 (24.62%) 5996 (24.29%)
3 145 (32.81%) 2228 (12.3%) 2373 (12.79%) 45 (30.2%) 717 (11.98%) 762 (12.42%) 3135 (12.7%)
4 82 (18.55%) 529 (2.92%) 611 (3.29%) 27 (18.12%) 199 (3.33%) 226 (3.68%) 837 (3.39%)
5 100 (22.62%) 349 (1.93%) 449 (2.42%) 30 (20.13%) 132 (2.21%) 162 (2.64%) 611 (2.48%)
Pulse oxygen saturation* 90% 235 (72.76%) 3368 (24.77%) 3603 (25.89%) <0.001 80 (68.38%) 1179 (26.09%) 1259 (27.16%) 0.001 4862 (26.2%)
>90% 88 (27.24%) 10228 (75.23%) 10316 (74.11%) 37 (31.62%) 3340 (73.91%) 3377 (72.84%) 13693 (73.8%)
Diameter of aortic sinus* <Critical value 72 (25.9%) 3225 (20.83%) 3297 (20.92%) 0.008 22 (26.19%) 1018 (19.9%) 1040 (20%) 0.353 4337 (20.69%)
Normal 72 (25.9%) 5299 (34.23%) 5371 (34.08%) 27 (32.14%) 1732 (33.85%) 1759 (33.83%) 7130 (34.02%)
>Critical value 134 (48.2%) 6958 (44.94%) 7092 (45%) 35 (41.67%) 2366 (46.25%) 2401 (46.17%) 9493 (45.29%)
AAO* Median (range) 1.1 (0.2, 4.11) 1.2 (0.4, 14.1) 1.2 (0.2, 14.1) <0.001 1.15 (0.5, 6.69) 1.2 (0.4, 6.62) 1.2 (0.4, 6.69) 0.635 1.2 (0.2, 14.1)
DAO* Median (range) 1.2 (0.6, 4.28) 1.3 (0.38, 11.1) 1.3 (0.38, 11.1) 0.005 1.2 (0.6, 3.45) 1.27 (0.5, 5.03) 1.23 (0.5, 5.03) 0.058 1.28 (0.38, 11.1)
MPA (mm)* Median (range) 1.72 (0.34, 6.19) 1.6 (0.2, 20) 1.6 (0.2, 20) 0.022 1.7 (0.6, 17) 1.6 (0.3, 41.6) 1.6 (0.3, 41.6) 0.588 1.6 (0.2, 41.6)
MV (m/s)* Median (range) 1 (0.3, 3.3) 1.2 (0.36, 3.81) 1.2 (0.3, 3.81) <0.001 1 (0.4, 2.68) 1.2 (0.4, 12) 1.2 (0.4, 12) <0.001 1.2 (0.3, 12)
TV2 (m/s)* Median (range) 0.8 (0.4, 2.47) 0.8 (0.2, 33) 0.8 (0.2, 33) 0.025 0.8 (0.4, 1.7) 0.8 (0.3, 10.7) 0.8 (0.3, 10.7) 0.487 0.8 (0.2, 33)
Left atrial dimension* <Critical value 79 (27.82%) 1907 (12.24%) 1986 (12.52%) <0.001 25 (27.78%) 621 (12.06%) 646 (12.33%) <0.001 2632 (12.47%)
Normal 79 (27.82%) 3330 (21.37%) 3409 (21.49%) 26 (28.89%) 1146 (22.25%) 1172 (22.37%) 4581 (21.71%)
>Critical value 126 (44.37%) 10343 (66.39%) 10469 (65.99%) 39 (43.33%) 3383 (65.69%) 3422 (65.31%) 13891 (65.82%)
LVDD* <Critical value 209 (56.64%) 5535 (33.42%) 5744 (33.92%) <0.001 65 (50.39%) 1791 (32.81%) 1856 (33.21%) <0.001 7600 (33.75%)
Normal 81 (21.95%) 3337 (20.15%) 3418 (20.19%) 28 (21.71%) 1095 (20.06%) 1123 (20.1%) 4541 (20.16%)
>Critical value 79 (21.41%) 7691 (46.43%) 7770 (45.89%) 36 (27.91%) 2573 (47.13%) 2609 (46.69%) 10379 (46.09%)
LVEF* <Critical value 176 (48.22%) 8881 (53.7%) 9057 (53.58%) 0.022 67 (52.34%) 3050 (55.93%) 3117 (55.85%) 0.009 12174 (54.15%)
Normal 108 (29.59%) 4846 (29.3%) 4954 (29.31%) 27 (21.09%) 1495 (27.42%) 1522 (27.27%) 6476 (28.8%)
>Critical value 81 (22.19%) 2811 (17%) 2892 (17.11%) 34 (26.56%) 908 (16.65%) 942 (16.88%) 3834 (17.05%)
LVFS* <Critical value 191 (52.33%) 8697 (52.59%) 8888 (52.58%) 0.096 68 (53.13%) 2993 (54.89%) 3061 (54.85%) 0.01 11949 (53.14%)
Normal 102 (27.95%) 5209 (31.5%) 5311 (31.42%) 28 (21.88%) 1600 (29.34%) 1628 (29.17%) 6939 (30.86%)
>Critical value 72 (19.73%) 2632 (15.91%) 2704 (16%) 32 (25%) 860 (15.77%) 892 (15.98%) 3596 (15.99%)
LVPWD <Critical value 121 (33.06%) 4734 (28.61%) 4855 (28.7%) 0.146 36 (28.13%) 1590 (29.15%) 1626 (29.12%) 0.605 6481 (28.81%)
Normal 101 (27.6%) 4635 (28.01%) 4736 (28%) 39 (30.47%) 1448 (26.54%) 1487 (26.63%) 6223 (27.66%)
>Critical value 144 (39.34%) 7179 (43.38%) 7323 (43.3%) 53 (41.41%) 2417 (44.31%) 2470 (44.24%) 9793 (43.53%)
Large artery shunt* None 220 (58.51%) 14125 (85.46%) 14345 (84.86%) <0.001 72 (54.96%) 4669 (85.8%) 4741 (85.07%) <0.001 19086 (84.91%)
Left to right 108 (28.72%) 1728 (10.45%) 1836 (10.86%) 37 (28.24%) 564 (10.36%) 601 (10.78%) 2437 (10.84%)
Right to left 12 (3.19%) 53 (0.32%) 65 (0.38%) 2 (1.53%) 21 (0.39%) 23 (0.41%) 88 (0.39%)
Two-way 36 (9.57%) 623 (3.77%) 659 (3.9%) 20 (15.27%) 188 (3.45%) 208 (3.73%) 867 (3.86%)
Atrial shunt* None 77 (19.74%) 6169 (36.95%) 6246 (36.55%) <0.001 29 (21.64%) 2018 (36.6%) 2047 (36.25%) <0.001 8293 (36.48%)
Left to right 114 (29.23%) 7450 (44.62%) 7564 (44.27%) 42 (31.34%) 2408 (43.68%) 2450 (43.39%) 10014 (44.05%)
Right to left 48 (12.31%) 617 (3.7%) 665 (3.89%) 10 (7.46%) 235 (4.26%) 245 (4.34%) 910 (4%)
Two-way 151 (38.72%) 2461 (14.74%) 2612 (15.29%) 53 (39.55%) 852 (15.45%) 905 (16.03%) 3517 (15.47%)
Ventricular shunt* None 106 (27.39%) 4582 (27.45%) 4688 (27.45%) <0.001 34 (25.95%) 1472 (26.73%) 1506 (26.71%) <0.001 6194 (27.27%)
Left to right 17 (4.39%) 6000 (35.95%) 6017 (35.23%) 4 (3.05%) 1996 (36.24%) 2000 (35.47%) 8017 (35.29%)
Right to left 5 (1.29%) 33 (0.2%) 38 (0.22%) 0 (0%) 9 (0.16%) 9 (0.16%) 47 (0.21%)
Two-way 259 (66.93%) 6077 (36.41%) 6336 (37.1%) 93 (70.99%) 2030 (36.86%) 2123 (37.66%) 8459 (37.24%)
AI* Negative 307 (75.8%) 13794 (81.81%) 14101 (81.66%) 0.002 98 (71.01%) 4517 (81.2%) 4615 (80.95%) 0.003 18716 (81.49%)
Slight 66 (16.3%) 2110 (12.51%) 2176 (12.6%) 28 (20.29%) 698 (12.55%) 726 (12.73%) 2902 (12.63%)
Mild 28 (6.91%) 831 (4.93%) 859 (4.97%) 11 (7.97%) 311 (5.59%) 322 (5.65%) 1181 (5.14%)
Mild to moderate 2 (0.49%) 66 (0.39%) 68 (0.39%) 1 (0.72%) 16 (0.29%) 17 (0.3%) 85 (0.37%)
Moderate 2 (0.49%) 31 (0.18%) 33 (0.19%) 0 (0%) 16 (0.29%) 16 (0.28%) 49 (0.21%)
Moderate to severe 0 (0%) 14 (0.08%) 14 (0.08%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.04%) 2 (0.04%) 16 (0.07%)
Severe 0 (0%) 16 (0.09%) 16 (0.09%) 0 (0%) 3 (0.05%) 3 (0.05%) 19 (0.08%)
MR* Negative 129 (36.13%) 4475 (27.41%) 4604 (27.6%) 0.001 32 (26.23%) 1492 (27.71%) 1524 (27.68%) 0.297 6128 (27.62%)
Slight 151 (42.3%) 7495 (45.91%) 7646 (45.83%) 53 (43.44%) 2456 (45.62%) 2509 (45.57%) 10155 (45.77%)
Mild 52 (14.57%) 3168 (19.41%) 3220 (19.3%) 22 (18.03%) 1031 (19.15%) 1053 (19.12%) 4273 (19.26%)
Mild to moderate 14 (3.92%) 651 (3.99%) 665 (3.99%) 3 (2.46%) 233 (4.33%) 236 (4.29%) 901 (4.06%)
Moderate 7 (1.96%) 389 (2.38%) 396 (2.37%) 5 (4.1%) 123 (2.28%) 128 (2.32%) 524 (2.36%)
Moderate to severe 1 (0.28%) 82 (0.5%) 83 (0.5%) 4 (3.28%) 27 (0.5%) 31 (0.56%) 114 (0.51%)
Severe 3 (0.84%) 65 (0.4%) 68 (0.41%) 3 (2.46%) 22 (0.41%) 25 (0.45%) 93 (0.42%)
PI* Negative 95 (32.09%) 2423 (15.11%) 2518 (15.42%) <0.001 27 (25%) 811 (15.38%) 838 (15.57%) 0.668 3356 (15.45%)
Slight 123 (41.55%) 9015 (56.21%) 9138 (55.95%) 46 (42.59%) 2993 (56.75%) 3039 (56.47%) 12177 (56.08%)
Mild 67 (22.64%) 4343 (27.08%) 4410 (27%) 29 (26.85%) 1374 (26.05%) 1403 (26.07%) 5813 (26.77%)
Mild to moderate 3 (1.01%) 88 (0.55%) 91 (0.56%) 3 (2.78%) 31 (0.59%) 34 (0.63%) 125 (0.58%)
Moderate 8 (2.7%) 156 (0.97%) 164 (1%) 2 (1.85%) 60 (1.14%) 62 (1.15%) 226 (1.04%)
Moderate to severe 0 (0%) 4 (0.02%) 4 (0.02%) 1 (0.93%) 3 (0.06%) 4 (0.07%) 8 (0.04%)
Severe 0 (0%) 8 (0.05%) 8 (0.05%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.04%) 2 (0.04%) 10 (0.05%)
TR* Negative 10 (2.83%) 235 (1.45%) 245 (1.47%) 0.033 5 (4.2%) 71 (1.33%) 76 (1.39%) 0.153 321 (1.45%)
Slight 165 (46.74%) 8606 (52.92%) 8771 (52.79%) 55 (46.22%) 2845 (53.29%) 2900 (53.13%) 11671 (52.88%)
Mild 128 (36.26%) 5930 (36.47%) 6058 (36.46%) 35 (29.41%) 1922 (36%) 1957 (35.86%) 8015 (36.31%)
Mild to moderate 25 (7.08%) 832 (5.12%) 857 (5.16%) 16 (13.45%) 290 (5.43%) 306 (5.61%) 1163 (5.27%)
Moderate 15 (4.25%) 468 (2.88%) 483 (2.91%) 7 (5.88%) 144 (2.7%) 151 (2.77%) 634 (2.87%)
Moderate to severe 3 (0.85%) 87 (0.54%) 90 (0.54%) 1 (0.84%) 28 (0.52%) 29 (0.53%) 119 (0.54%)
Severe 7 (1.98%) 103 (0.63%) 110 (0.66%) 0 (0%) 39 (0.73%) 39 (0.71%) 149 (0.68%)
White blood cell count* Normal 258 (83.23%) 13271 (93.91%) 13529 (93.68%) <0.001 101 (84.87%) 4390 (93.98%) 4491 (93.76%) <0.001 18020 (93.7%)
Abnormal 52 (16.77%) 861 (6.09%) 913 (6.32%) 18 (15.13%) 281 (6.02%) 299 (6.24%) 1212 (6.3%)
Lymphocyte count Normal 93 (30%) 4199 (29.71%) 4292 (29.72%) 0.913 35 (29.41%) 1395 (29.86%) 1430 (29.85%) 0.916 5722 (29.75%)
Abnormal 217 (70%) 9933 (70.29%) 10150 (70.28%) 84 (70.59%) 3277 (70.14%) 3361 (70.15%) 13511 (70.25%)
Monocyte count* Normal 147 (47.42%) 9971 (70.56%) 10118 (70.06%) <0.001 59 (49.58%) 3240 (69.35%) 3299 (68.86%) <0.001 13417 (69.76%)
Abnormal 163 (52.58%) 4161 (29.44%) 4324 (29.94%) 60 (50.42%) 1432 (30.65%) 1492 (31.14%) 5816 (30.24%)
Neutrophil count* Normal 182 (58.71%) 10609 (75.07%) 10791 (74.72%) <0.001 79 (66.39%) 3498 (74.87%) 3577 (74.66%) 0.036 14368 (74.7%)
Abnormal 128 (41.29%) 3523 (24.93%) 3651 (25.28%) 40 (33.61%) 1174 (25.13%) 1214 (25.34%) 4865 (25.3%)
Eosinophil count* Normal 148 (49.33%) 8182 (59.86%) 8330 (59.63%) <0.001 56 (48.7%) 2749 (60.93%) 2805 (60.62%) 0.008 11135 (59.88%)
Abnormal 152 (50.67%) 5487 (40.14%) 5639 (40.37%) 59 (51.3%) 1763 (39.07%) 1822 (39.38%) 7461 (40.12%)
Basophil cell count* Normal 259 (86.33%) 13083 (95.71%) 13342 (95.51%) <0.001 101 (87.83%) 4314 (95.61%) 4415 (95.42%) <0.001 17757 (95.49%)
Abnormal 41 (13.67%) 586 (4.29%) 627 (4.49%) 14 (12.17%) 198 (4.39%) 212 (4.58%) 839 (4.51%)
Lymphocyte ratio* Normal 92 (29.68%) 3539 (25.04%) 3631 (25.14%) 0.063 41 (34.45%) 1188 (25.43%) 1229 (25.65%) 0.026 4860 (25.27%)
Abnormal 218 (70.32%) 10593 (74.96%) 10811 (74.86%) 78 (65.55%) 3484 (74.57%) 3562 (74.35%) 14373 (74.73%)
Red blood cell count* Normal 197 (63.55%) 11561 (81.81%) 11758 (81.42%) <0.001 81 (68.07%) 3825 (81.87%) 3906 (81.53%) <0.001 15664 (81.44%)
Abnormal 113 (36.45%) 2571 (18.19%) 2684 (18.58%) 38 (31.93%) 847 (18.13%) 885 (18.47%) 3569 (18.56%)
Hemoglobin* Normal 197 (63.55%) 9645 (68.25%) 9842 (68.15%) 0.079 82 (68.91%) 3246 (69.48%) 3328 (69.46%) 0.894 13170 (68.48%)
Abnormal 113 (36.45%) 4487 (31.75%) 4600 (31.85%) 37 (31.09%) 1426 (30.52%) 1463 (30.54%) 6063 (31.52%)
Hematocrit Normal 225 (71.88%) 9974 (70.54%) 10199 (70.57%) 0.606 91 (75.83%) 3317 (70.92%) 3408 (71.04%) 0.241 13607 (70.69%)
Abnormal 88 (28.12%) 4165 (29.46%) 4253 (29.43%) 29 (24.17%) 1360 (29.08%) 1389 (28.96%) 5642 (29.31%)
Mean corpuscular volume* Normal 230 (74.19%) 9646 (68.26%) 9876 (68.38%) 0.026 83 (69.75%) 3183 (68.13%) 3266 (68.17%) 0.708 13142 (68.33%)
Abnormal 80 (25.81%) 4486 (31.74%) 4566 (31.62%) 36 (30.25%) 1489 (31.87%) 1525 (31.83%) 6091 (31.67%)
MHC/MCH (solid mass)* Normal 192 (61.94%) 6948 (49.17%) 7140 (49.44%) <0.001 72 (60.5%) 2299 (49.21%) 2371 (49.49%) 0.015 9511 (49.45%)
Abnormal 118 (38.06%) 7184 (50.83%) 7302 (50.56%) 47 (39.5%) 2373 (50.79%) 2420 (50.51%) 9722 (50.55%)
MHC/MCHC (mass concentration)* Normal 211 (68.06%) 10816 (76.54%) 11027 (76.35%) 0.001 77 (64.71%) 3589 (76.82%) 3666 (76.52%) 0.002 14693 (76.39%)
Abnormal 99 (31.94%) 3316 (23.46%) 3415 (23.65%) 42 (35.29%) 1083 (23.18%) 1125 (23.48%) 4540 (23.61%)
RDW-SD* Normal 39 (12.58%) 6021 (42.61%) 6060 (41.96%) <0.001 21 (17.65%) 2028 (43.41%) 2049 (42.77%) <0.001 8109 (42.16%)
Abnormal 271 (87.42%) 8111 (57.39%) 8382 (58.04%) 98 (82.35%) 2644 (56.59%) 2742 (57.23%) 11124 (57.84%)
Platelet count* Normal 235 (75.81%) 12706 (89.91%) 12941 (89.61%) <0.001 100 (84.03%) 4220 (90.33%) 4320 (90.17%) 0.023 17261 (89.75%)
Abnormal 75 (24.19%) 1426 (10.09%) 1501 (10.39%) 19 (15.97%) 452 (9.67%) 471 (9.83%) 1972 (10.25%)
Mean platelet volume* Normal 211 (68.06%) 11008 (77.9%) 11219 (77.69%) <0.001 81 (68.07%) 3625 (77.61%) 3706 (77.37%) 0.014 14925 (77.61%)
Abnormal 99 (31.94%) 3123 (22.1%) 3222 (22.31%) 38 (31.93%) 1046 (22.39%) 1084 (22.63%) 4306 (22.39%)
APTT* Normal 148 (48.21%) 9173 (66.12%) 7211 (83.06%) 0.019 60 (50.42%) 3065 (66.85%) 3125 (66.43%) <0.001 12446 (65.9%)
Abnormal 159 (51.79%) 4701 (33.88%) 1471 (16.94%) 59 (49.58%) 1520 (33.15%) 1579 (33.57%) 6439 (34.1%)
Prothrombin time* Normal 138 (44.81%) 9721 (70.06%) 9321 (65.73%) <0.001 47 (39.17%) 3236 (70.49%) 3283 (69.69%) <0.001 13142 (69.55%)
Abnormal 170 (55.19%) 4155 (29.94%) 4860 (34.27%) 73 (60.83%) 1355 (29.51%) 1428 (30.31%) 5753 (30.45%)
Total protein* Normal 84 (27.54%) 6555 (47.44%) 6639 (47.02%) <0.001 34 (28.81%) 2187 (47.85%) 2221 (47.37%) <0.001 8860 (47.1%)
Abnormal 221 (72.46%) 7261 (52.56%) 7482 (52.98%) 84 (71.19%) 2384 (52.15%) 2468 (52.63%) 9950 (52.9%)
Serum albumin* Normal 205 (66.99%) 12128 (87.67%) 12333 (87.22%) <0.001 81 (68.07%) 3984 (87.12%) 4065 (86.64%) <0.001 16398 (87.08%)
Abnormal 101 (33.01%) 1706 (12.33%) 1807 (12.78%) 38 (31.93%) 589 (12.88%) 627 (13.36%) 2434 (12.92%)
Serum globulin* Normal 188 (61.64%) 10800 (78.2%) 10988 (77.84%) <0.001 76 (64.41%) 3601 (78.8%) 3677 (78.43%) <0.001 14665 (77.99%)
Abnormal 117 (38.36%) 3011 (21.8%) 3128 (22.16%) 42 (35.59%) 969 (21.2%) 1011 (21.57%) 4139 (22.01%)
Albumin/globulin ratio* Normal 205 (67.21%) 11065 (80.12%) 11270 (79.84%) <0.001 76 (64.41%) 3648 (79.82%) 3724 (79.44%) <0.001 14994 (79.74%)
Abnormal 100 (32.79%) 2746 (19.88%) 2846 (20.16%) 42 (35.59%) 922 (20.18%) 964 (20.56%) 3810 (20.26%)
ALT* Normal 234 (76.47%) 12334 (89.09%) 12568 (88.82%) <0.001 94 (78.99%) 4055 (88.61%) 4149 (88.37%) 0.001 16717 (88.71%)
Abnormal 72 (23.53%) 1510 (10.91%) 1582 (11.18%) 25 (21.01%) 521 (11.39%) 546 (11.63%) 2128 (11.29%)
Aspartate aminotransferase* Normal 130 (42.62%) 7806 (56.39%) 7936 (56.09%) <0.001 53 (44.54%) 2516 (54.98%) 2569 (54.72%) 0.024 10505 (55.75%)
Abnormal 175 (57.38%) 6038 (43.61%) 6213 (43.91%) 66 (55.46%) 2060 (45.02%) 2126 (45.28%) 8339 (44.25%)
ALP* Normal 292 (95.74%) 13601 (98.44%) 13893 (98.39%) 0.001 115 (97.46%) 4497 (98.38%) 4612 (98.36%) 0.444 18505 (98.38%)
Abnormal 13 (4.26%) 215 (1.56%) 228 (1.61%) 3 (2.54%) 74 (1.62%) 77 (1.64%) 305 (1.62%)
L-γ-glutamyltransferase Normal 202 (66.23%) 9082 (65.74%) 9284 (65.75%) 0.857 79 (66.95%) 2924 (63.97%) 3003 (64.04%) 0.505 12287 (65.32%)
Abnormal 103 (33.77%) 4734 (34.26%) 4837 (34.25%) 39 (33.05%) 1647 (36.03%) 1686 (35.96%) 6523 (34.68%)
Total bilirubin* Normal 140 (48.78%) 11207 (81.73%) 11347 (81.05%) <0.001 64 (58.72%) 3648 (80.44%) 3712 (79.93%) <0.001 15059 (80.77%)
Abnormal 147 (51.22%) 2506 (18.27%) 2653 (18.95%) 45 (41.28%) 887 (19.56%) 932 (20.07%) 3585 (19.23%)
Direct bilirubin* Normal 191 (67.73%) 11953 (90.28%) 12144 (89.81%) <0.001 82 (77.36%) 3946 (90.32%) 4028 (90.01%) <0.001 16172 (89.86%)
Abnormal 91 (32.27%) 1287 (9.72%) 1378 (10.19%) 24 (22.64%) 423 (9.68%) 447 (9.99%) 1825 (10.14%)
Creatinine* Normal 283 (92.48%) 13682 (98.89%) 13965 (98.76%) <0.001 109 (91.6%) 4527 (98.97%) 4636 (98.79%) <0.001 18601 (98.76%)
Abnormal 23 (7.52%) 153 (1.11%) 176 (1.24%) 10 (8.4%) 47 (1.03%) 57 (1.21%) 233 (1.24%)
Uric acid* Normal 150 (49.02%) 8159 (58.99%) 8309 (58.77%) <0.001 52 (43.7%) 2656 (58.07%) 2708 (57.7%) 0.002 11017 (58.5%)
Abnormal 156 (50.98%) 5673 (41.01%) 5829 (41.23%) 67 (56.3%) 1918 (41.93%) 1985 (42.3%) 7814 (41.5%)
Eosinophils/100 leukocytes* Normal 194 (64.45%) 10744 (78.6%) 10938 (78.29%) <0.001 67 (58.26%) 3572 (79.15%) 3639 (78.63%) <0.001 14577 (78.38%)
Abnormal 107 (35.55%) 2926 (21.4%) 3033 (21.71%) 48 (41.74%) 941 (20.85%) 989 (21.37%) 4022 (21.62%)
Monocytes/100 leukocytes* Normal 274 (88.39%) 13121 (92.85%) 13395 (92.75%) 0.003 104 (87.39%) 4317 (92.4%) 4421 (92.28%) 0.043 17816 (92.63%)
Abnormal 36 (11.61%) 1011 (7.15%) 1047 (7.25%) 15 (12.61%) 355 (7.6%) 370 (7.72%) 1417 (7.37%)
Neutrophils/100 leukocytes Normal 72 (23.23%) 3404 (24.09%) 3476 (24.07%) 0.726 23 (19.33%) 1150 (24.61%) 1173 (24.48%) 0.185 4649 (24.17%)
Abnormal 238 (76.77%) 10728 (75.91%) 10966 (75.93%) 96 (80.67%) 3522 (75.39%) 3618 (75.52%) 14584 (75.83%)
Basophils/100 leukocytes* Normal 239 (79.4%) 12199 (89.26%) 12438 (89.05%) <0.001 94 (81.74%) 4015 (88.98%) 4109 (88.8%) 0.015 16547 (88.99%)
Abnormal 62 (20.6%) 1468 (10.74%) 1530 (10.95%) 21 (18.26%) 497 (11.02%) 518 (11.2%) 2048 (11.01%)
TFIC* Normal 249 (80.84%) 12561 (90.65%) 12810 (90.44%) <0.001 99 (82.5%) 4145 (90.4%) 4244 (90.2%) 0.004 17054 (90.38%)
Abnormal 59 (19.16%) 1295 (9.35%) 1354 (9.56%) 21 (17.5%) 440 (9.6%) 461 (9.8%) 1815 (9.62%)
Main defect*
TGA 0 405 (91.6%) 17645 (97.4%) 18050 (97.3%) <0.001 138 (92.6%) 5825 (97.3%) 5963 (97.2%) 0.003 24013 (97.3%)
1 37 (8.4%) 465 (2.6%) 502 (2.7%) 11 (7.4%) 159 (2.7%) 170 (2.8%) 672 (2.7%)
APVC 0 419 (94.8%) 17618 (97.3%) 18037 (97.2%) 0.002 146 (98.0%) 5833 (97.5%) 5979 (97.5%) 1 24016 (97.3%)
1 23 (5.2%) 492 (2.7%) 515 (2.8%) 3 (2.0%) 151 (2.5%) 154 (2.5%) 669 (2.7%)
COA 0 431 (97.5%) 17521 (96.7%) 17952 (96.8%) 0.37 146 (98.0%) 5793 (96.8%) 5939 (96.8%) 0.632 23891 (96.8%)
1 11 (2.5%) 589 (3.3%) 600 (3.2%) 3 (2.0%) 191 (3.2%) 194 (3.2%) 794 (3.2%)
IAA 0 433 (98.0%) 18023 (99.5%) 18456 (99.5%) <0.001 145 (97.3%) 5951 (99.4%) 6096 (99.4%) 0.012 24552 (99.5%)
1 9 (2.0%) 87 (0.5%) 96 (0.5%) 4 (2.7%) 33 (0.6%) 37 (0.6%) 133 (0.5%)
AVC 0 433 (98.0%) 17585 (97.1%) 18018 (97.1%) 0.284 143 (96.0%) 5820 (97.3%) 5963 (97.2%) 0.309 23981 (97.1%)
1 9 (2.0%) 525 (2.9%) 534 (2.9%) 6 (4.0%) 164 (2.7%) 170 (2.8%) 704 (2.9%)
Single ventricle 0 421 (95.2%) 17844 (98.5%) 18265 (98.5%) <0.001 144 (96.6%) 5893 (98.5) 6037 (98.4%) 0.084 24302 (98.4%)
1 21 (4.8%) 266 (1.5%) 287 (1.5%) 5 (3.4%) 91 (1.5%) 96 (1.6%) 383 (1.6%)
DORV 0 415 (93.9%) 17608 (97.2%) 18023 (97.1%) <0.001 134 (89.9%) 5821 (97.3%) 5955 (97.1%) <0.001 23978 (97.1)
1 27 (6.1%) 502 (2.8%) 529 (2.9%) 15 (10.1%) 163 (2.7%) 178 (2.9%) 707 (2.9%)
ASD 0 326 (73.8%) 11528 (63.7%) 11854 (63.9%) <0.001 105 (70.5%) 3808 (63.6%) 3913 (63.8%) 0.086 15767 (63.9%)
1 116 (26.2%) 6582 (36.3%) 6698 (36.1%) 44 (29.5%) 2176 (36.4%) 2220 (36.2%) 8918 (36.1%)
VSD 0 325 (73.5%) 10741 (59.3%) 11066 (59.6%) <0.001 106 (71.1%) 3555 (59.4%) 3661 (59.7%) 0.004 14727 (59.7%)
1 117 (26.5%) 7369 (40.7%) 7486 (40.4%) 43 (28.9%) 2429 (40.6%) 2472 (40.3%) 9958 (40.3%)
PFO 0 420 (95.0%) 16294 (90.0%) 16714 (90.1%) <0.001 142 (95.3%) 5376 (89.8%) 5518 (90.0%) 0.028 22232 (90.1%)
1 22 (5.0%) 1816 (10.0%) 1838 (9.9%) 7 (4.7%) 608 (10.2%) 615 (10.0%) 2453 (9.9%)
TOF 0 400 (90.5%) 16731 (92.4%) 17131 (92.3%) 0.14 142 (95.3%) 5508 (92.0%) 5650 (92.1%) 0.145 22781 (92.3%)
1 42 (9.5%) 1379 (7.6%) 1421 (7.7%) 7 (4.7%) 476 (8.0%) 483 (7.9%) 1904 (7.7%)
PDA 0 355 (80.3%) 15892 (87.8%) 16247 (87.6%) <0.001 118 (79.2%) 5272 (88.1%) 5390 (87.9%) 0.001 21637 (87.7%)
1 87 (19.7%) 2218 (12.2%) 2305 (12.4%) 31 (20.8%) 712 (11.9%) 743 (12.1%) 3048 (12.3%)
Pulmonary hypertension 0 391 (88.5%) 15070 (83.2%) 15461 (83.3%) 0.003 121 (81.2%) 5008 (83.7%) 5129 (83.6%) 0.419 20590 (83.4%)
1 51 (11.5%) 3040 (16.8%) 3091 (16.7%) 28 (18.8%) 976 (16.3%) 1004 (16.4%) 4095 (16.6%)
Numbers of defects* 0 232 (52.5%) 6418 (35.4%) 6650 (35.8%) <0.001 74 (49.7%) 2161 (36.1%) 2235 (36.4%) <0.001 8885 (36.0%)
1 33 (7.5%) 4405 (24.3%) 4438 (23.9%) 18 (12.1%) 1380 (23.1%) 1398 (22.8%) 5836 (23.6%)
2 58 (13.1%) 3918 (21.6%) 3976 (21.4%) 14 (9.4%) 1350 (22.6%) 1364 (22.2%) 5340 (21.6%)
3 48 (10.9%) 1700 (9.4%) 1748 (9.4%) 17 (11.4%) 554 (9.3%) 571 (9.3%) 2319 (9.4%)
4 44 (10.0%) 1059 (5.8%) 1103 (5.9%) 15 (10.1%) 332 (5.5%) 347 (5.7%) 1450 (5.9%)
5 19 (4.3%) 483 (2.7%) 502 (2.7%) 9 (6.0%) 167 (2.8%) 176 (2.9%) 678 (2.7%)
6 7 (1.6%) 116 (0.6%) 123 (0.7%) 2 (1.3%) 37 (0.6%) 39 (0.6%) 162 (0.7%)
7 1 (0.2%) 10 (0.1%) 11 (0.1%) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.1%) 3 (0.0%) 14 (0.1%)
8 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0%)
Preoperative mechanical ventilation* 0 307 (69.5%) 16599 (91.7%) 16906 (91.1%) <0.001 107 (71.8%) 5473 (91.5%) 5580 (91.0%) <0.001 22486 (91.1%)
1 135 (30.5%) 1511 (8.3%) 1646 (8.9%) 42 (28.2%) 511 (8.5%) 553 (9.0%) 2199 (8.9%)
Categorical variables are described using frequency (%). Continuous variables are described as the median (range).
AAO, Ascending aorta dimension; DAO, Descending aorta dimension; MPA, Main pulmonary artery dimension; MV, Mitral blood flow velocity; TV2, Transtricuspid velocity2; BMI, Body mass index; HCT, Hematocrit; LVDD, Left ventricular end diastolic dimension; LVEF, Left ventricular ejection fraction; LVFS, Left ventricular fraction shortening; LVPWD, Left ventricular posterior wall dimension; AI, Aortic insufficiency; MR, Mitral regurgitation; PI, Pulmonary insufficiency; TR, Tricuspid regurgitation; RDW-SD, Red blood cell volume distribution width-standard deviation; ALP, Alkaline phosphatase; MHC/MCH, Mean hemoglobin content/mean corpuscular hemoglobin; ALT, Alanine aminotransferase; MHC/MCHC, Mean hemoglobin concentration/mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; APTT, Activated partial thromboplastin time; TFIC, Tissue factor induced coagulation; TGA, transposition of the great arteries; APVC, anomalous pulmonary venous connection; COA, coarctation of the aorta; IAA, interrupted aortic arch; AVC, atrioventricular canal; DORV, double-outlet right ventricle; ASD, atrial septal defect; PDA, patent ductus arteriosus; PFO, patent foramen ovale; TOF, tetralogy of Fallot; VSD, ventricular septal defect.
Note: variables marked with * are included in the XGBoost model.

Comparative analysis of in-hospital mortality and risk categories for each procedure are listed in Table 2. The most common procedures included ventricular septal defect (VSD) membranous repair, tetralogy repair, and VSD subarterial repair. The RACHS-1 categories consist of six groups labeled 1–6, and the STS-EACTS categories consists of five groups labeled 1–5, a higher number means a higher mortality risk. The risk of mortality associated with each procedure was calculated. The in-hospital mortality rate for each procedure ranged from 0–75%, and no death was recorded in 31 procedures. Mortality rates and risk stratification for specific procedures were also estimated using a Bayesian random effects model.

Table 2.Comparative analysis of in-hospital mortality and risk categories for procedures.
Procedure Cases (n) Death (n) Mortality (unadjusted) Mortality (model* based) Risk stratification RACHS-1 Grade STS-EACTS Grade
ASD hybrid repair (off pump) 87 0 0% 0.46% 1 2 2
ASD secundum repair 551 1 0.18% 0.13% 1 1 1
ASD secundum repair (patch) 1338 1 0.07% 0.14% 1 1 1
AVSD repair - depression 391 3 0.77% 0.42% 1 3 3
AVSD repair - single patch 116 1 0.86% 0.39% 1 3 3
Aortic valvuloplasty 109 1 0.92% 0.40% 1 2 2
Coronary art. fistula repair 78 0 0% 0.50% 1 2 2
Cortraitriatum repair 70 0 0% 0.50% 1 3 2
Mitral valvuloplasty 461 7 1.52% 0.85% 1 3 2
PAPVD isolated repair 115 0 0% 0.37% 1 1 1
Pulm. Infundibulum resection (indirect) 178 0 0% 0.31% 1 2 1
Subaortic fibromyectomy 155 0 0% 0.32% 1 3 1
Subaortic myectomy 80 1 1.25% 0.52% 1 3 1
Tricuspid valvuloplasty 540 3 0.56% 0.77% 1 3 2
VSD canal type repair 154 0 0% 0.33% 1 3 1
VSD membranous repair 7910 23 0.29% 0.33% 1 2 1
VSD subarterial repair 1641 1 0.06% 0.12% 1 2 1
Vascular ring repair 132 0 0% 0.37% 1 2 1
A-P window repair 31 1 3.23% 0.79% 2 2 2
A-V fistula repair 6 1 16.67% 1.53% 2 2 2
ASD common atrium repair 9 0 0% 1.27% 2 2 2
ASD repair - minimal invasive & CPB 29 0 0% 0.81% 2 2 2
ASD sinus venosus repair 38 0 0% 0.67% 2 1 2
Aortic valvotomy 56 0 0% 0.61% 2 2 2
Asc. aorta patch aortoplasty 184 6 3.26% 1.97% 2 2 2
Coarct repair - bypass or tubular graft 4 0 0% 1.53% 2 1 1
Coarct. repair - resection & E to S 377 10 2.65% 1.64% 2 1/2 2
Coarct. repair - patch aortoplasty 253 4 1.58% 1.92% 2 1/2 3
DORV repair - IVR 375 12 3.20% 3.09% 2 3 4
Ebstein anomaly repair 106 1 0.94% 1.17% 2 3 4
Excision of cardiac tumor 96 2 2.08% 2.39% 2 3 4
Exicion of intracardiac vegetation 11 0 0% 1.22% 2 2 2
Fontan operation - I stage 110 4 3.64% 2.97% 2 3 2
Hemitruncus repair 21 0 0% 1.02% 2 4 2
PDA closure (CPB) 32 0 0% 0.82% 2 1 2
PDA closure (off pump) 386 6 1.55% 1.62% 2 1 2
Pacemaker - re-implant 8 0 0% 1.34% 2 1 1
Pericardectomy 20 0 0% 0.99% 2 1 2
Pericardial drainage 160 8 5% 3.26% 2 1 4
Pulm. Infundibulum incision & resection 46 1 2.17% 1.99% 2 2 1
Pulmonary art. sling repair 20 0 0% 0.96% 2 3 3
Pulmonary art. stent 13 0 0% 1.17% 2 2 2
Pulmonary arterioplasty 251 8 3.19% 3.42% 2 2 2
Pulmonary valvotomy 200 3 1.50% 1.29% 2 2 2
Pulmonary valvotomy - hybrid 5 0 0% 1.43% 2 2 2
Subaortic septal patch (Konno) 15 0 0% 1.05% 2 4 3
Supravalve mitral ring resection 28 0 0% 0.79% 2 3 2
Systemic vein repair 14 0 0% 1.12% 2 2 3
TAPVD repair - intracardiac 184 2 1.09% 1.32% 2 2/4 4
TAPVD repair - mixed type 34 1 2.94% 2.67% 2 2/4 4
Tetralogy repair 2392 46 1.92% 1.95% 2 2 2
Tricuspid replacement (mech.) 13 0 0% 1.17% 2 3 2
VSD Hybrid repair (off pump) 171 1 0.58% 0.84% 2 2 2
VSD hybrid repair (CPB) 21 0 0% 0.99% 2 2 2
VSD multiple repair 127 2 1.57% 1.75% 2 2 2
VSD muscular repair 105 1 0.95% 1.20% 2 2 1
VSD repair - minimal invasive & CPB 45 0 0% 0.71% 2 2 2
AVSD repair - two patches 269 15 5.58% 5.27% 3 3 3
Ao translocation operation 17 2 11.76% 4.60% 3 3 3
Aortic arch repair 70 5 7.14% 6.30% 3 4 4
Aortic valve replacement (mech.) 45 3 6.67% 4.46% 3 3 1
Cavopulmonary shunt - bilateral 102 6 5.88% 4.61% 3 2 2
DOLV repair 4 0 0% 2.05% 3 3 4
Delayed sternal closure 891 51 5.72% 6.23% 3 1 1
Double switch (Senning + Rastelli) 3 0 0% 1.80% 3 4 5
Excision of cardiac diverticulum 4 0 0% 1.53% 3 2 2
Fontan operation - II stage 537 30 5.59% 5.77% 3 3 2
Kawashima procedure 4 0 0% 2.05% 3 3 1
Mitral replacement (mech.) 96 11 11.46% 7.86% 3 3 4
PA banding 101 12 11.88% 3.78% 3 3 4
Pulm. infundibulum resection & patch 78 4 5.13% 4.48% 3 2 1
Pulm. infundibulum resection, patch across annulus 292 15 5.14% 6.09% 3 2 2
Pulm. vein stenosis repair 40 2 5% 5% 3 4 4
Pulmonary atresia/IVS repair 19 2 10.53% 4.87% 3 4 3
Pulmonary atresia/VSD repair 288 17 5.90% 6.24% 3 4 3
Pulmonary valvotomy (off pump) 18 1 5.56% 4.60% 3 2 2
Senning procedure 19 1 5.26% 4.34% 3 3 4
TAPVD repair - supracardiac 238 13 5.46% 5.77% 3 2/4 4
ALC-PA repair 58 10 17.24% 14.97% 4 3 2
Cavopulmonary shunt - left 83 11 13.25% 12.68% 4 2 1
Cavopulmonary shunt - right 359 35 9.75% 10.85% 4 2 1
Central shunt - with graft 38 8 21.05% 11.02% 4 3 4
Conduit RV - PA 72 13 18.06% 13.98% 4 2 3
Double Switch (Hemi-Mustard) 6 1 16.67% 9.32% 4 4 5
Interrupted aortic arch repair 77 11 14.29% 13.32% 4 5 4
Interruption of bronchial collaterals 8 1 12.50% 9.32% 4 1 2
Pacemaker - primary implant 17 2 11.76% 11.95% 4 1 1
R.E.V. RV - PA connection 7 1 14.29% 8.28% 4 4 3
Rastelli operation 50 6 12% 9.44% 4 4 3
Rt. or lt. heart assist 8 3 37.50% 9.32% 4 2 1
TAPVD repair - infracardiac 43 6 13.95% 14.74% 4 2/4 4
Takedown previous shunt 11 1 9.09% 6.80% 4 2 3
Arterial switch repair 456 87 19.08% 19.20% 5 3 3
Atrial septectomy 12 4 33.33% 27.36% 5 4 4
Coronary artery repair 6 2 33.33% 24% 5 3 2
DKS connection 9 4 44.44% 30.71% 5 6 5
Double switch (Senning + ASO) 18 6 33.33% 18.03% 5 4 5
Fontan takedown 9 5 55.56% 41.71% 5 3 3
Norwood operation 4 3 75% 50.76% 5 6 5
PA debanding 3 1 33.33% 16.53% 5 3 4
PA unifocalization 61 11 18.03% 21% 5 4 4
Truncus repair 33 7 21.21% 20.44% 5 4 4
ASD, Atrial septal defect; AVSD, Atrioventricular septal defect; PAPVD, Partial anomalous pulmonary venous drainage; VSD, Ventricular septal defect.
A-P window, Aorto-pulmonary window; A-V fistula, Arteriovenous fistula; DORV, Double outlet right ventricle; CPB, Cardiopulmonary bypass. PDA, Patent ductus arteriosus; TAPVD, Total anomalous pulmonary venous drainage; ALC-PA, Anomalous left coronary artery from pulmonary artery.
RV, Right ventricle; PA, Pulmonary artery; DKS connection, Damus–Kaye–Stansel (DKS) procedure; ASO, Arterial switch operation. *: Bayesian random effect model.
3.2 Prediction Value of the Different Models

The performance of the XGBoost model, STS- EACTS, and RACHS-1 risk stratification categories in the testing set are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 2. The AUC of the STS-EACTS and RACHS-1 risk stratification categories was 0.748 (95% CI: 0.707–0.789) and 0.677 (95% CI: 0.627–0.728), respectively. Our XGBoost model yielded the best AUC (AUC = 0.887, 95% CI: 0.866–0.907), with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.785 and 0.824, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3.Prediction value of the model based on the XGBoost model, STS-EACTS categories, and RACHS-1 categories in the testing set.
Model AUC AUC 95% CI p-value Sensitivity Specificity
XGBoost model 0.874 (0.848, 0.901) <0.001 0.751 0.879
STS-EACTS categories 0.748 (0.707, 0.789) <0.001 0.819 0.569
RACHS-1 categories 0.677 (0.627, 0.728) <0.001 0.570 0.801
Fig. 2.

Comparison of the prediction values of the XGBoost model, STS-EACTS categories, and RACHS-1 categories in the testing set.

3.3 Importance of the Top 10 Variables in the Prediction of the XGBoost Model

The top 10 variables that contribute the most to the prediction power of the model are listed in Table 4. The higher the weight coefficient of a feature, the more significant role it plays in the model for outcome classification. The weight coefficient for saturation of pulse oxygen categories, risk categories, age, preoperative mechanical ventilation, atrial shunt, pulmonary insufficiency, ventricular shunt, left atrial dimension, a history of cardiac surgery, numbers of defect were 0.10638574, 0.07759346, 0.07303152, 0.07014898, 0.065226465, 0.05785214, 0.05760804, 0.052233107, 0.051096234, 0.0437589, respectively (Table 4). The excluded variables are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

Table 4.Importance of the top 10 risk factors in the prediction of the XGBoost model.
Feature Weight coefficient
Saturation of pulse oxygen categories 0.106386
Risk categories 0.077593
Age 0.073032
Preoperative mechanical ventilation 0.070149
Atrial shunt 0.065226
Pulmonary insufficiency 0.057852
Ventricular shunt 0.057608
Left atrial dimension 0.052233
A history of cardiac surgery 0.051096
Number of defects 0.043759
Weight coefficient: Refer to the extent to which each indicator contributes to the model.
4. Discussion

Prediction of in-hospital mortality risk is clinically important for directing patient postoperative management. In our study, we compared the XGBoost model with traditional tools for predicting mortality in pediatric CHD surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare machine learning algorithms with the RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS categories for the prediction of in-hospital mortality risk in pediatric CHD surgery. And we found that in children with CHD of China, the XGBoost model was more accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality for CHD surgery than in the RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS categories.

In our study, the in-hospital mortality rate after CHD surgery was 2.4%, which is consistent with that previously reported in China [5] and in western countries [25, 26, 27], but much lower than that reported in developing countries [28, 29]. Cardiac surgeons use traditional tools such as the RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS to report patient outcomes. The RACHS-1 categories were constructed based on a combination of the opinions of 11 experts and empirical data to predict in-hospital mortality [12, 30]. The RACHS-1 categories classifies procedures into six levels of risk of mortality based on a few clearly defined criteria. In previous studies, the risk of mortality from CHD surgery with different RACHS-1 stratification ranged from 0.26% to 62% [31, 32, 33], which is consistent with the findings of our study. An objective, empirically based tool named STS-EACTS, without the input of an expert panel, has been developed for analyzing in-hospital mortality associated with CHD surgery [14, 34]. However, the RACHS-1 and STS-EACTS categories only consider procedural characteristics and ignore individual patient characteristics. Both categories lack precision when estimating the risk for individual patients. In addition, some procedures (19%) in our cohort could not be classified using the RACHS-1 or STS-EACTS categories. Due to the enormous differences in patient-related variables and CHD surgery, it is difficult to establish a mortality risk prediction model.

Hence, one of the greatest challenges in medicine is how to deal with individuals who have the same disease but with different manifestations. Machine learning algorithms may provide a solution for this problem. Furthermore, previous study further demonstrated that machine-learning methods, especially gradient boosting models, are promising to outperform existing clinical risk scores [35]. Machine learning models have currently been explored as a tool to predict mortality, morbidity, and complications in patients with CHD [22, 36, 37]. A XGBoost model was constructed based on surgical risk stratification and patient preoperative variables in this study. According to previous studies, the AUC of the STS-EACTS and RACHS-1 categories to predict the mortality and complications of CHD surgery in children was 0.68–0.79 [14, 22, 28, 38, 39]. In our study, the AUC of the XGBoost model was 0.887, which was better than that of the STS-EACTS (AUC = 0.748) and RACHS-1 (AUC = 0.677) categories. The results showed that the XGBoost model was able to predict in-hospital mortality with improved predictive power compared to the STS-EACTS and RACHS-1 models.

In addition to surgical risk stratification, patient-related variables also had a significant impact on the performance of the postoperative mortality risk prediction model. The XGBoost model incorporates demographic characteristics, preoperative echocardiography characteristics, and laboratory examination results into the final predictive model. We analyzed the importance of these risk factors in the XGBoost model. Our results showed that saturation of pulse oxygen categories had the greatest impact on the predictive performance of the model. Previous studies have shown that oxygen saturation correlates with mortality in children undergoing CHD surgery [40, 41]. A decrease in oxygen saturation at 24 hours after the operation may increase the mortality rate of newborns with cyanotic cardiopathies [42].

For patients with CHD who have received cardiac intervention, preoperative mechanical ventilation and RACHS categories may affect their mortality during hospitalization [43]. Mechanical ventilation has been shown to be a strong predictor of in-hospital mortality in children with noncardiac surgery [44]. In addition, study has found that newborns with severe CHD may have increased mortality if they need unplanned cardiac reintervention, and according to the results of multifactorial analysis, mechanical ventilation before heart intervention and the larger RACHS-1 category are independent risk factors for unplanned cardiac re-intervention [45]. In this study, we also found that risk categories and preoperative mechanical ventilation are top influencing factors of the predictive performance in XGBoost model. This reminds clinicians to pay more attention to the prognosis of these patients whose surgery is at greater risk category or who require preoperative mechanical ventilation.

Age, as an important factor in the mortality rate of children with CHD, has also been mentioned in several studies. A study in Taiwan Province of China found that the majority (i.e., more than 90%) of CHD deaths occur within the first 5 years of life (mainly in infancy) [46]. The study showed that the mortality rate of CHD patients has a downward trend with the increase of age [47]. Our study also found that age is an influencing factor of in-hospital mortality in children with CHD and made a great contribution to the model. Clinicians should pay more attention to younger CHD patients in practice.

In addition to the above factors, the results of the machine learning model in this study also show that atrium shunt and ventricular shunt may also be the factor of in-hospital mortality. The reason may be that these factors affect the occurrence of postoperative complications in patients. Low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) is a common life-threatening postoperative complication of heart disease that may contributes to postoperative morbidity and mortality [48, 49, 50, 51]. Atrial shunt and ventricular level shunt were all independent risk predictors of LCOS [52]. Bangrong Song et al. [51] believed that more attention should be paid to CHD patients age 4 years, preoperative oxygen saturation 93%, CPB duration 60 minutes, two-way ventricular shunt, postoperative residual shunt to improve the prognosis of these patients. In addition, study has found that left atrium dimension is associated with long-term adverse outcomes (hospitalization due to heart failure, all-cause mortality, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and/or embolic stroke during follow-up) of rheumatic heart disease [53].

In this study, we found that the number of defects influences in-hospital mortality in patients with CHD. The reason may be that if the patient carries multiple CHD at the same time, the prognosis is much worse than that of the patient with a single type of CHD. Presently, the most common types of CHDs include ventricular septal defect (VSD), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), secundum atrial septal defect (ASDII), pulmonary stenosis (PS) and tetralogy of Fallot (TOF), and the incidence of each CHD is different [54]. Several studies have further divided the CHD population into simple and severe CHD groups [54, 55], and it is found that individuals with simple CHD (e.g., VSD or ASD) have higher survival rates, almost similar to normal populations [47]. However, the prognoses of patients with severe CHD varies widely [47].

Clinicians should focus on the top variables in the model to improve patient outcomes by dealing with variables that can be managed. For example, on the premise of ensuring the treatment effect, surgery with low-risk categories should be selected to improve the postoperative survival rate of patients. For the CHD patients with abnormalities in the above top indicators should be paid closer attention to their postoperative recovery status, which is the important significance of this study to propose this model.

This study has some limitations. First, this study is a single-center retrospective study. However, this is the first study to use a machine learning algorithm to predict mortality in pediatric CHD surgery in a large sample. In addition, our center is the most famous treatment center for children with congenital heart disease in China, with patients from most provinces in China. Second, the in-hospital mortality rates recorded in this study may not include all operation-related deaths, and need to include data from patients after discharge. This needs to be addressed in a more complete data source. Third, there was an imbalance in the number of patients who died and survivors in this study, and we did not perform a 1:N case-control match at the time of patient enrollment. During model building, we try to deal with the imbalance of samples in the training set, we tried to process the unbalanced classes and tuned the parameter ‘scale_pos_weight’, a parameter adjusting the balance of positive and negative weights in the XGBoost package. However, this did not improve the predictive performance of the model.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our single-center study of 24,685 patients demonstrated that using a combination of procedure complexity categories and preoperative patient-level factors, the XGBoost model had higher accuracy in in-hospital mortality prediction than both the RACHS-1 and STS–EACTS categories. In clinical practice, machine learning models can be established based on the surgical database for risk prediction to improve cardiac surgical care.

Author Contributions

ZHL and XWD mainly participated in literature search, study design, writing and critical revision. HW, SMW, YH, JHZ, HBZ, ZDH, YWC and ZWX mainly participated in data collection, data analysis and data interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ethical Committee of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University (approval number: SCMCIRB-W2020026).

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank all the staff of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center who have contributed to this study. We also thank Shanghai Synyi Medical Technology Co., Ltd. for providing a data analysis and statistical platform.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

Zedong Hao and Yiwei Chen are current employees of Shanghai Synyi Medical Technology Co., Ltd. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References
[1]
Triedman JK, Newburger JW. Trends in Congenital Heart Disease: The Next Decade. Circulation. 2016; 133: 2716–2733.
[2]
Kahr PC, Diller G. Almanac 2014: congenital heart disease. Heart. 2015; 101: 65–71.
[3]
Jin SC, Homsy J, Zaidi S, Lu Q, Morton S, DePalma SR, et al. Contribution of rare inherited and de novo variants in 2,871 congenital heart disease probands. Nature Genetics. 2017; 49: 1593–1601.
[4]
Li H, Ge J. Cardiovascular diseases in China: Current status and future perspectives. IJC Heart and Vasculature. 2015; 6: 25–31.
[5]
Hu Z, Yuan X, Rao K, Zheng Z, Hu S. National trend in congenital heart disease mortality in China during 2003 to 2010: a population-based study. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014; 148: 596–602.e1.
[6]
Bouma BJ, Mulder BJM. Changing Landscape of Congenital Heart Disease. Circulation Research. 2017; 120: 908–922.
[7]
Spector LG, Menk JS, Knight JH, McCracken C, Thomas AS, Vinocur JM, et al. Trends in Long-Term Mortality after Congenital Heart Surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 71: 2434–2446.
[8]
Feudtner C, Pati S, Goodman DM, Kahn MG, Sharma V, Hutto JH, et al. State-Level Child Health System Performance and the Likelihood of Readmission to Children’s Hospitals. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2010; 157: 98–102.e1.
[9]
Mildh LH, Pettilä V, Sairanen HI, Rautiainen PH. Cardiac Troponin T Levels for Risk Stratification in Pediatric Open Heart Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2006; 82: 1643–1648.
[10]
Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, Cushman M, Das SR, Deo R, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017; 135: e146–e603.
[11]
Du X, Wang H, Wang S, He Y, Zheng J, Zhang H, et al. Construction of Patient-level Prediction Model for In-hospital Mortality in Congenital Heart Disease Surgery: Regression and Machine Learning analysis. 2020. (in press)
[12]
Jenkins KJ, Gauvreau K. Center-specific differences in mortality: Preliminary analyses using the Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS-1) method. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2002; 124: 97–104.
[13]
Lacour-Gayet F, Clarke D, Jacobs J, Comas J, Daebritz S, Daenen W, et al. The Aristotle score: a complexity-adjusted method to evaluate surgical results. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2004; 25: 911–924.
[14]
O’Brien SM, Clarke DR, Jacobs JP, Jacobs ML, Lacour-Gayet FG, Pizarro C, et al. An empirically based tool for analyzing mortality associated with congenital heart surgery. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009; 138: 1139–1153.
[15]
Hörer J, Kasnar-Samprec J, Cleuziou J, Strbad M, Wottke M, Kaemmerer H, et al. Mortality Following Congenital Heart Surgery in Adults can be Predicted Accurately by Combining Expert-Based and Evidence-Based Pediatric Risk Scores. World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery. 2016; 7: 425–435.
[16]
Jalali A, Lonsdale H, Do N, Peck J, Gupta M, Kutty S, et al. Deep Learning for Improved Risk Prediction in Surgical Outcomes. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10: 9289.
[17]
Bertsimas D, Zhuo D, Dunn J, Levine J, Zuccarelli E, Smyrnakis N, et al. Adverse Outcomes Prediction for Congenital Heart Surgery: a Machine Learning Approach. World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery. 2021; 12: 453–460.
[18]
Ngiam KY, Khor IW. Big data and machine learning algorithms for health-care delivery. The Lancet Oncology. 2019; 20: e262–e273.
[19]
Volkova A, Ruggles KV. Predictive Metagenomic Analysis of Autoimmune Disease Identifies Robust Autoimmunity and Disease Specific Microbial Signatures. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021; 12: 621310.
[20]
Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. ACM. 2016.
[21]
Kilic A, Goyal A, Miller JK, Gjekmarkaj E, Tam WL, Gleason TG, et al. Predictive Utility of a Machine Learning Algorithm in Estimating Mortality Risk in Cardiac Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2020; 109: 1811–1819.
[22]
Zeng X, An J, Lin R, Dong C, Zheng A, Li J, et al. Prediction of complications after paediatric cardiac surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2020; 57: 350–358.
[23]
Verheugt CL, Uiterwaal CSPM, van der Velde ET, Meijboom FJ, Pieper PG, van Dijk APJ, et al. Mortality in adult congenital heart disease. European Heart Journal. 2010; 31: 1220–1229.
[24]
Naidu P, Grigg L, Zentner D. Mortality in adults with congenital heart disease. International Journal of Cardiology. 2017; 245: 125–130.
[25]
O’Connor MJ, Glatz AC, Rossano JW, Shaddy RE, Ryan R, Ravishankar C, et al. Cumulative Effect of Preoperative Risk Factors on Mortality after Pediatric Heart Transplantation. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2018; 106: 561–566.
[26]
Jenkins KJ, Koch Kupiec J, Owens PL, Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Gauvreau K. Development and Validation of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Indicator for Mortality after Congenital Heart Surgery Harmonized with Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS‐1) Methodology. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2016; 5: e003028.
[27]
Chu DI, Tan JM, Mattei P, Costarino AT, Rossano JW, Tasian GE. Mortality and Morbidity after Laparoscopic Surgery in Children with and without Congenital Heart Disease. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2017; 185: 88–93.e3.
[28]
Cavalcante CTDMB, Souza NMGD, Pinto Júnior VC, Branco KMPC, Pompeu RG, Teles ACDO, et al. Analysis of surgical mortality for congenital heart defects using RACHS-1 risk score in a Brazilian single center. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery. 2016; 31: 219–225.
[29]
Larrazabal LA, Jenkins KJ, Gauvreau K, Vida VL, Benavidez OJ, Gaitán GA, et al. Improvement in Congenital Heart Surgery in a Developing Country. Circulation. 2007; 116: 1882–1887.
[30]
Jenkins KJ. Risk adjustment for congenital heart surgery: the RACHS-1 method. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery: Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Annual. 2004; 7: 180–184.
[31]
Cavalcanti PEF, Sá MPBDO, Santos CAD, Esmeraldo IM, Chaves ML, Lins RFDA, et al. Stratification of complexity in congenital heart surgery: comparative study of the Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS-1) method, Aristotle basic score and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (STS-EACTS) mortality score. Revista Brasileira De Cirurgia Cardiovascular. 2015; 30: 148–158.
[32]
Al-Radi OO, Harrell FE, Caldarone CA, McCrindle BW, Jacobs JP, Williams MG, et al. Case complexity scores in congenital heart surgery: a comparative study of the Aristotle Basic Complexity score and the Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS-1) system. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2007; 133: 865–875.
[33]
Raucci FJ, Hoke TR, Gutgesell HP. Predicting Economic and Medical Outcomes Based on Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery Classification of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgical Admissions. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2014; 114: 1740–1744.
[34]
Jacobs JP, Jacobs ML, Maruszewski B, Lacour-Gayet FG, Clarke DR, Tchervenkov CI, et al. Current Status of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2005; 80: 2278–2284.
[35]
Shung D, Laine L. Machine Learning Prognostic Models for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using Electronic Health Record Data. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2020; 115: 1199–1200.
[36]
Ruiz-Fernández D, Monsalve Torra A, Soriano-Payá A, Marín-Alonso O, Triana Palencia E. Aid decision algorithms to estimate the risk in congenital heart surgery. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2016; 126: 118–127.
[37]
Chang Junior J, Binuesa F, Caneo LF, Turquetto ALR, Arita E, Barbosa AC, et al. Improving preoperative risk-of-death prediction in surgery congenital heart defects using artificial intelligence model: A pilot study. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15: e0238199.
[38]
DeCampli WM, Burke RP. Interinstitutional Comparison of Risk-Adjusted Mortality and Length of Stay in Congenital Heart Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2009; 88: 151–156.
[39]
Boethig D, Jenkins K, Hecker H, Thies W, Breymann T. The RACHS-1 risk categories reflect mortality and length of hospital stay in a large German pediatric cardiac surgery population. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2004; 26: 12–17.
[40]
Fenton KN, Freeman K, Glogowski K, Fogg S, Duncan KF. The significance of baseline cerebral oxygen saturation in children undergoing congenital heart surgery. The American Journal of Surgery. 2005; 190: 260–263.
[41]
Ohuchi H, Miyazaki A, Negishi J, Hayama Y, Nakai M, Nishimura K, et al. Hemodynamic determinants of mortality after Fontan operation. American Heart Journal. 2017; 189: 9–18.
[42]
González de Dios J, Blanco Bravo D, Burgueros Valero M, Cordovilla Zurdo G, Pérez Rodríguez J, García Guereta L, et al. Perioperative management of systemic pulmonary shunts in the neonatal period. Anales Espanoles de Pediatria. 1993; 39: 139–148. (In Spanish)
[43]
Cheng HH, Almodovar MC, Laussen PC, Wypij D, Polito A, Brown DW, et al. Outcomes and Risk Factors for Mortality in Premature Neonates with Critical Congenital Heart Disease. Pediatric Cardiology. 2011; 32: 1139–1146.
[44]
Faraoni D, Vo D, Nasr VG, DiNardo JA. Development and Validation of a Risk Stratification Score for Children with Congenital Heart Disease Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2016; 123: 824–830.
[45]
Mazwi ML, Brown DW, Marshall AC, Pigula FA, Laussen PC, Polito A, et al. Unplanned reinterventions are associated with postoperative mortality in neonates with critical congenital heart disease. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2013; 145: 671–677.
[46]
Yeh S, Chen H, Lu C, Wang J, Huang L, Huang S, et al. Prevalence, Mortality, and the Disease Burden of Pediatric Congenital Heart Disease in Taiwan. Pediatrics and Neonatology. 2013; 54: 113–118.
[47]
Yeh S, Chen H, Lu C, Wang J, Huang L, Huang S, et al. National database study of survival of pediatric congenital heart disease patients in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2015; 114: 159–163.
[48]
K. Chandler H, Kirsch R. Management of the Low Cardiac Output Syndrome Following Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease. Current Cardiology Reviews. 2016; 12: 107–111.
[49]
Uhlig K, Efremov L, Tongers J, Frantz S, Mikolajczyk R, Sedding D, et al. Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; 11: CD009669.
[50]
Hoffman TM, Wernovsky G, Atz AM, Kulik TJ, Nelson DP, Chang AC, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Milrinone in Preventing Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Infants and Children after Corrective Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease. Circulation. 2003; 107: 996–1002.
[51]
Song B, Dang H, Dong R. Analysis of risk factors of low cardiac output syndrome after congenital heart disease operation: what can we do. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2021; 16: 135.
[52]
Du X, Chen H, Song X, Wang S, Hao Z, Yin L, et al. Risk factors for low cardiac output syndrome in children with congenital heart disease undergoing cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pediatrics. 2020; 20: 87.
[53]
Nachom P, Ratanasit N. Incidence and Predictors of Long-Term Adverse Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis in Sinus Rhythm. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 2016; 99: 374–380.
[54]
Wu M, Chen H, Lu C, Wang J, Huang S, Huang S. Prevalence of Congenital Heart Disease at Live Birth in Taiwan. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2010; 156: 782–785.
[55]
Marelli AJ, Mackie AS, Ionescu-Ittu R, Rahme E, Pilote L. Congenital heart disease in the general population: changing prevalence and age distribution. Circulation. 2007; 115: 163–172.
Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Share
Back to top