Incremental Detection of Severe Congenital Heart Disease by Fetal Echocardiography Following a Normal Second Trimester Ultrasound Scan in Québec, Canada.
congenital heart disease
echocardiography
pregnancy
prenatal diagnosis
risk factors
Journal
Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1942-0080
Titre abrégé: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101479935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
5
4
2022
medline:
22
4
2022
entrez:
4
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The benefit of fetal echocardiograms (FE) to detect severe congenital heart diseases (SCHD) in the setting of a normal second-trimester ultrasound is unclear. We aimed to assess whether the increase in SCHD detection rates when FE are performed for risk factors in the setting of a normal ultrasound was clinically significant to justify the resources needed. This is a multicenter, population-based, retrospective cohort study, including all singleton pregnancies and offspring in Quebec (Canada) between 2007 and 2015. Administrative health care data were linked with FE clinical data to gather information on prenatal diagnosis of CHD, indications for FE, outcomes of pregnancy and offspring, postnatal diagnosis of CHD, cardiac interventions, and causes of death. The difference between the sensitivity to detect SCHD with and without FE for risk factors was calculated using generalized estimating equations with a noninferiority margin of 5 percentage points. A total of 688 247 singleton pregnancies were included, of which 30 263 had at least one FE. There were 1564 SCHD, including 1071 that were detected prenatally (68.5%). There were 12 210 FE performed for risk factors in the setting of a normal second-trimester ultrasound, which led to the detection of 49 additional cases of SCHD over 8 years. FE referrals for risk factors increased sensitivity by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, 2.3-4.0; In the setting of a normal second-trimester ultrasound, adding a FE for risk factors offered low incremental value to the detection rate of SCHD in singleton pregnancies. The current ratio of clinical gains versus the FE resources needed to screen for SCHD in singleton pregnancies with isolated risk factors does not seem favorable. Further studies should evaluate whether these resources could be better allocated to increase SCHD sensitivity at the ultrasound level, and to help decrease heterogeneity between regions, institutions and operators.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The benefit of fetal echocardiograms (FE) to detect severe congenital heart diseases (SCHD) in the setting of a normal second-trimester ultrasound is unclear. We aimed to assess whether the increase in SCHD detection rates when FE are performed for risk factors in the setting of a normal ultrasound was clinically significant to justify the resources needed.
METHODS
This is a multicenter, population-based, retrospective cohort study, including all singleton pregnancies and offspring in Quebec (Canada) between 2007 and 2015. Administrative health care data were linked with FE clinical data to gather information on prenatal diagnosis of CHD, indications for FE, outcomes of pregnancy and offspring, postnatal diagnosis of CHD, cardiac interventions, and causes of death. The difference between the sensitivity to detect SCHD with and without FE for risk factors was calculated using generalized estimating equations with a noninferiority margin of 5 percentage points.
RESULTS
A total of 688 247 singleton pregnancies were included, of which 30 263 had at least one FE. There were 1564 SCHD, including 1071 that were detected prenatally (68.5%). There were 12 210 FE performed for risk factors in the setting of a normal second-trimester ultrasound, which led to the detection of 49 additional cases of SCHD over 8 years. FE referrals for risk factors increased sensitivity by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, 2.3-4.0;
CONCLUSIONS
In the setting of a normal second-trimester ultrasound, adding a FE for risk factors offered low incremental value to the detection rate of SCHD in singleton pregnancies. The current ratio of clinical gains versus the FE resources needed to screen for SCHD in singleton pregnancies with isolated risk factors does not seem favorable. Further studies should evaluate whether these resources could be better allocated to increase SCHD sensitivity at the ultrasound level, and to help decrease heterogeneity between regions, institutions and operators.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35369710
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.013796
pmc: PMC9015032
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e013796Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : PJT 166022
Pays : Canada
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Can J Cardiol. 2020 Oct;36(10):1592-1597
pubmed: 32622839
Circulation. 2014 Aug 26;130(9):749-56
pubmed: 24944314
CJC Open. 2021 Jun 18;3(8):987-993
pubmed: 34505037
Circulation. 2014 May 27;129(21):2183-242
pubmed: 24763516
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jun 19;39(12):1890-900
pubmed: 12084585
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004 Jul;17(7):803-10
pubmed: 15220910
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 2;9(7):e028139
pubmed: 31270117
Am J Perinatol. 2019 Oct;36(12):1216-1222
pubmed: 30991442
JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Sep 1;3(9):829-837
pubmed: 30027209
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Apr;41(4):459-465.e12
pubmed: 30591407
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;33(6):676-82
pubmed: 19479684
Pediatr Cardiol. 2014 Aug;35(6):928-33
pubmed: 24531875
Cardiol Res Pract. 2014;2014:175635
pubmed: 24523982
BJOG. 2019 Jun;126(7):864-873
pubmed: 30576052
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2016 Feb;6(1):44-9
pubmed: 26885491
J Ultrasound Med. 2009 May;28(5):603-8
pubmed: 19389899
Can J Cardiol. 2018 Dec;34(12):1674-1676
pubmed: 30527157
J Ultrasound Med. 2018 May;37(5):1073-1079
pubmed: 29027708
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;51(5):659-664
pubmed: 28436133
J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Aug;33(8):1365-9
pubmed: 25063401
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Mar;31(3):272-275
pubmed: 19416575
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;55(6):747-757
pubmed: 31131945
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Mar;94(3):231-5
pubmed: 25545405