The reported prevalence in the 10 studies that used CMR to define EDFF (51.9%; 95% CI, 42.4%–61.1%; I2=70.5%) tended to be marginally higher than that in the 32 studies that defined EDFF based on Doppler echocardiography (45.6%; 95% CI, 40.2%–51.1%; I2=80.7%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (test for subgroup differences: P =0.263).
← all excerpts
End-Diastolic Forward Flow and Restrictive Physiology in Repaired Tetralogy of Fallot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
1
0.2630
0.2630