Elizabeth C Ailes1, Suzanne M Gilboa2, Margaret A Honein2, Matthew E Oster3. 1. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; eailes@cdc.gov. 2. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; 3. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Sibley Heart Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia; and Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended universal screening of newborns for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs), yet few estimates of the number of infants with CCHDs likely to be detected through universal screening exist. Our objective was to estimate the number of infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs in the United States likely to be detected (true positives) and missed (false negatives) through universal newborn CCHD screening. METHODS: We developed a simulation model based on estimates of birth prevalence, prenatal diagnosis, late detection, and sensitivity of newborn CCHD screening through pulse oximetry to estimate the number of true-positive and false-negative nonsyndromic cases of the 7 primary and 5 secondary CCHD screening targets identified through screening. RESULTS: We estimated that 875 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 705-1060) US infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs, including 470 (95% UI: 360-585) infants with primary CCHD screening targets, will be detected annually through newborn CCHD screening. An additional 880 (UI: 700-1080) false-negative screenings, including 280 (95% UI: 195-385) among primary screening targets, are expected. We estimated that similar numbers of CCHDs would be detected under scenarios comparing "lower" (∼19%) and "higher" (∼41%) than current prenatal detection prevalences. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of nonsyndromic CCHD cases are likely to be detected through universal CCHD screening; however, an equal number of false-negative screenings, primarily among secondary targets of screening, are likely to occur. Future efforts should document the true impact of CCHD screening in practice.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services recommended universal screening of newborns for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs), yet few estimates of the number of infants with CCHDs likely to be detected through universal screening exist. Our objective was to estimate the number of infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs in the United States likely to be detected (true positives) and missed (false negatives) through universal newborn CCHD screening. METHODS: We developed a simulation model based on estimates of birth prevalence, prenatal diagnosis, late detection, and sensitivity of newborn CCHD screening through pulse oximetry to estimate the number of true-positive and false-negative nonsyndromic cases of the 7 primary and 5 secondary CCHD screening targets identified through screening. RESULTS: We estimated that 875 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 705-1060) US infants with nonsyndromic CCHDs, including 470 (95% UI: 360-585) infants with primary CCHD screening targets, will be detected annually through newborn CCHD screening. An additional 880 (UI: 700-1080) false-negative screenings, including 280 (95% UI: 195-385) among primary screening targets, are expected. We estimated that similar numbers of CCHDs would be detected under scenarios comparing "lower" (∼19%) and "higher" (∼41%) than current prenatal detection prevalences. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of nonsyndromic CCHD cases are likely to be detected through universal CCHD screening; however, an equal number of false-negative screenings, primarily among secondary targets of screening, are likely to occur. Future efforts should document the true impact of CCHD screening in practice.
Authors: N M Pinto; H T Keenan; L L Minich; M D Puchalski; M Heywood; L D Botto Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Shakila Thangaratinam; Jane Daniels; Andrew K Ewer; Javier Zamora; Khalid S Khan Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Lorenzo D Botto; Angela E Lin; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Sadia Malik; Adolfo Correa Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2007-10
Authors: P W Yoon; S A Rasmussen; M C Lynberg; C A Moore; M Anderka; S L Carmichael; P Costa; C Druschel; C A Hobbs; P A Romitti; P H Langlois; L D Edmonds Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Matthew J Strickland; Mark D Reller; William T Mahle; Lorenzo D Botto; Csaba Siffel; Mike Atkinson; Adolfo Correa Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2007-11
Authors: Mark K Friedberg; Norman H Silverman; Anita J Moon-Grady; Elizabeth Tong; Jennifer Nourse; Beatrice Sorenson; Jaimie Lee; Lisa K Hornberger Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: William T Mahle; Jane W Newburger; G Paul Matherne; Frank C Smith; Tracey R Hoke; Robert Koppel; Samuel S Gidding; Robert H Beekman; Scott D Grosse Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Franklin Pereira; Alejandra Bueno; Andrea Rodriguez; Douglas Perrin; Gerald Marx; Michael Cardinale; Ivan Salgo; Pedro Del Nido Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-01-24
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Zhengfeng Lai; Pranjali Vadlaputi; Daniel J Tancredi; Meena Garg; Robert I Koppel; Mera Goodman; Whitnee Hogan; Nicole Cresalia; Stephan Juergensen; Erlinda Manalo; Satyan Lakshminrusimha; Chen-Nee Chuah; Heather Siefkes Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2021-11
Authors: Joel C Boggan; John Paul Shoup; John D Whited; Elizabeth Van Voorhees; Adelaide M Gordon; Sharron Rushton; Allison A Lewinski; Amir A Tabriz; Soheir Adam; Jessica Fulton; Andrzej S Kosinski; Megan G Van Noord; John W Williams; Karen M Goldstein; Jennifer M Gierisch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 5.128