Late Detection of Critical Congenital Heart Disease Among US Infants Estimation of the Potential Impact of Proposed Universal Screening Using Pulse Oximetry
ABSTRACT IMPORTANCE Critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) was added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for Newborns in the United States in 2011. Many states have recently adopted or are considering requirements for universal CCHD screening through pulse oximetry in birth hospitals. Limited previous research is directly applicable to the question of how many US infants with CCHD might be identified through screening. OBJECTIVES To estimate the proportion of US infants with late detection of CCHD (>3 days after birth) based on existing clinical practice and to investigate factors associated with late detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Descriptive and multivariable analysis. Data were obtained from a multisite population-based study of birth defects in the United States, the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS). We included all live-born infants with estimated dates of delivery from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2007, and nonsyndromic, clinically verified CCHD conditions potentially detectable through screening via pulse oximetry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome measure was the proportion of infants with late detection of CCHD through echocardiography or at autopsy under the assumption that universal screening at birth hospitals might reduce the number of such late diagnoses. Secondary outcome measures included prevalence ratios for associations between selected demographic and clinical factors and late detection of CCHD. RESULTS Of 3746 live-born infants with nonsyndromic CCHD, late detection occurred in 1106 (29.5% [95% CI, 28.1%-31.0%]), including 6 (0.2%) (0.1%-0.4%) first receiving a diagnosis at autopsy more than 3 days after birth. Late detection varied by CCHD type from 9 of 120 infants (7.5% [95% CI, 3.5%-13.8%]) with pulmonary atresia to 497 of 801 (62.0% [58.7%-65.4%]) with coarctation of the aorta. In multivariable analysis, late detection varied significantly by CCHD type and study site, and infants with extracardiac defects were significantly less likely to have late detection of CCHD (adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.69]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE We estimate that 29.5% of live-born infants with nonsyndromic CCHD in the NBDPS received a diagnosis more than 3 days after birth and therefore might have benefited from routine CCHD screening at birth hospitals. The number of infants in whom CCHD was detected through screening likely varies by several factors, including CCHD type. Additional population-based studies of screening in practice are needed.
The Lancet 04/2014; 384(9945). DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60575-4 · 39.21 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimPulse oximetry screening of newborn infants increases early detection of critical congenital heart disease and minimises the risk of circulatory collapse before surgery. This study provides an update on the implementation of pulse oximetry screening in the Nordic countries and proposes standardised guidelines. MethodsA questionnaire exploring pulse oximetry screening, clinical examination routines and availability of echocardiography was distributed to all 157 delivery units in the Nordic countries in June 2013. ResultsWe received responses from 156 of the 157 delivery units, and 116 (74%) were using pulse oximetry screening by September 2013. Preductal and postductal screening were both used in 59 of 116 units (51%), with just postductal screening in 51 of 116 (44%) and just preductal screening alone in 6 of 116 (5%). Screening was performed before 24h in 105 of 116 units (91%). The implementation of screening was highest in Finland (29/30, 97%), Sweden (42/46, 91%) and Norway (43/48, 90%) and lowest in Denmark (2/24, 8%) and Iceland (0/8 units). Conclusion In Sweden, Norway and Finland, the implementation of pulse oximetry screening is currently the highest in the world and coverage will be close to 100% in 2014. We propose uniform Nordic guidelines using preductal and postductal screening before 24h of age.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway: 1992). Supplement 07/2014; 103(11). DOI:10.1111/apa.12758
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine trends in timing of diagnosis of critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) and factors associated with delayed diagnosis (diagnosis after discharge home following delivery). METHODS: We examined a population-based retrospective cohort of CCHD cases among live births identified through the Massachusetts Birth Defects Monitoring Program. Congenital heart defects were considered critical if the infant received corrective surgery, interventional catheterization, palliative care, or died as a result of the defect within 12 months of birth. Timing of initial diagnosis was classified as prenatal, postnatal before discharge home, or delayed. Demographic, perinatal, and mortality information was obtained from the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were used to examine associations with delayed diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 460 467 live births to Massachusetts residents between 2004 and 2009, we identified 916 CCHD cases, of which 126 (13.8%) had delayed diagnosis. Rates of prenatal CCHD diagnosis increased from 44.9% in 2004 to 63.8% in 2009, whereas rates of delayed diagnosis decreased from 17.1% to 10.6% over the same time period. Among cases with delayed diagnosis, the most common defects were coarctation, pulmonary valve stenosis, and tetralogy of Fallot. Delayed diagnosis was associated with delivery outside a tertiary hospital (adjusted PR: 3.6 [95% confidence interval: 2.5-5.2]) and isolated CCHD (adjusted PR: 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing prenatal diagnosis of CCHDs, delayed diagnosis still occurs in over 10% of cases. Understanding factors associated with delayed diagnosis could help to improve prenatal and postnatal screening efforts, including pulse oximetry testing.Pediatrics 07/2014; 134(2). DOI:10.1542/peds.2013-3949 · 5.30 Impact Factor