Literature DB >> 17493305

Comparing the clinical and economic effects of clinical examination, pulse oximetry, and echocardiography in newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model and value of information analysis.

Ingolf Griebsch1, Rachel L Knowles, Jacqueline Brown, Catherine Bull, Christopher Wren, Carol A Dezateux.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Congenital heart defects (CHD) are an important cause of death and morbidity in early childhood, but the effectiveness of alternative newborn screening strategies in preventing the collapse or death--before diagnosis--of infants with treatable but life-threatening defects is uncertain. We assessed their effectiveness and efficiency to inform policy and research priorities.
METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of clinical examination alone and clinical examination with either pulse oximetry or screening echocardiography in making a timely diagnosis of life-threatening CHD or in diagnosing clinically significant CHD. We contrasted their cost-effectiveness, using a decision-analytic model based on 100,000 live births, and assessed future research priorities using value of information analysis.
RESULTS: Clinical examination alone, pulse oximetry, and screening echocardiography achieved 34.0, 70.6, and 71.3 timely diagnoses per 100,000 live births, respectively. This finding represents an additional cost per additional timely diagnosis of 4,894 pounds and 4,496,666 pounds for pulse oximetry and for screening echocardiography. The equivalent costs for clinically significant CHD are 1,489 pounds and 36,013 pounds, respectively. Key determinants of cost-effectiveness are detection rates and screening test costs. The false-positive rate is very high with screening echocardiography (5.4 percent), but lower with pulse oximetry (1.3 percent) or clinical examination alone (.5 percent).
CONCLUSIONS: Adding pulse oximetry to clinical examination is likely to be a cost-effective newborn screening strategy for CHD, but further research is required before this policy can be recommended. Screening echocardiography is unlikely to be cost-effective, unless the detection of all clinically significant CHD is considered beneficial and a 5 percent false-positive rate acceptable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17493305     DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307070304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  15 in total

1.  A public health economic assessment of hospitals' cost to screen newborns for critical congenital heart disease.

Authors:  Cora Peterson; Scott D Grosse; Jill Glidewell; Lorraine F Garg; Kim Van Naarden Braun; Mary M Knapp; Leslie M Beres; Cynthia F Hinton; Richard S Olney; Cynthia H Cassell
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Accuracy of cardiac auscultation in asymptomatic neonates with heart murmurs: comparison between pediatric trainees and neonatologists.

Authors:  Ageliki A Karatza; Karatza A Ageliki; Sotirios Fouzas; Fouzas Sotirios; Sotirios Tzifas; Tzifas Sotirios; Alexandra Mermiga; Mermiga Alexandra; Gabriel Dimitriou; Dimitriou Gabriel; Stefanos Mantagos; Mantagos Stefanos
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 1.655

Review 3.  A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice.

Authors:  Lotte Steuten; Gijs van de Wetering; Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Valesca Retèl
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Lessons Learned From Newborn Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects.

Authors:  Matthew E Oster; Susan W Aucott; Jill Glidewell; Jesse Hackell; Lazaros Kochilas; Gerard R Martin; Julia Phillippi; Nelangi M Pinto; Annamarie Saarinen; Marci Sontag; Alex R Kemper
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects in Ontario, Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Amit Mukerji; Amy Shafey; Amish Jain; Eyal Cohen; Prakesh S Shah; Beate Sander; Vibhuti Shah
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2020-01-06

6.  Effectiveness of neonatal pulse oximetry screening for detection of critical congenital heart disease in daily clinical routine--results from a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Frank Thomas Riede; Cornelia Wörner; Ingo Dähnert; Andreas Möckel; Martin Kostelka; Peter Schneider
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 3.183

7.  Current diagnosis and treatments for critical congenital heart defects.

Authors:  Zhandong Zeng; Hongwei Zhang; Fengli Liu; Ning Zhang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of neonatal screening of critical congenital heart defects in China.

Authors:  Ruoyan Gai Tobe; Gerard R Martin; Fuhai Li; Akinori Moriichi; Bin Wu; Rintaro Mori
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Impact of pulse oximetry screening on the detection of duct dependent congenital heart disease: a Swedish prospective screening study in 39,821 newborns.

Authors:  Anne de-Wahl Granelli; Margareta Wennergren; Kenneth Sandberg; Mats Mellander; Carina Bejlum; Leif Inganäs; Monica Eriksson; Niklas Segerdahl; Annelie Agren; Britt-Marie Ekman-Joelsson; Jan Sunnegårdh; Mario Verdicchio; Ingegerd Ostman-Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-01-08

10.  Genome-wide association study of maternal and inherited loci for conotruncal heart defects.

Authors:  A J Agopian; Laura E Mitchell; Joseph Glessner; Angela D Bhalla; Anshuman Sewda; Hakon Hakonarson; Elizabeth Goldmuntz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.