Matthew E Oster1, Stephanie Watkins2, Kevin D Hill2, Jessica H Knight2, Robert E Meyer2. 1. From the Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA (M.E.O); Department of Cardiology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, GA (M.E.O.); Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA (M.E.O., J.H.K.); Department of Physical Therapy, Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC (S.W.); Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center and the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (K.D.H.); and Birth Defects Monitoring Branch, State Center for Health Statistics, North Carolina Division of Public Health, Raleigh (R.E.M.). osterm@kidsheart.com. 2. From the Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA (M.E.O); Department of Cardiology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, GA (M.E.O.); Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA (M.E.O., J.H.K.); Department of Physical Therapy, Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC (S.W.); Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center and the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (K.D.H.); and Birth Defects Monitoring Branch, State Center for Health Statistics, North Carolina Division of Public Health, Raleigh (R.E.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies evaluating neurocognitive outcomes in children with congenital heart defects (CHD) have focused on high-risk patients or used specialized, resource-intensive testing. To determine the association of CHD with academic outcomes and compare outcomes according to the severity of CHD, we linked state educational records with a birth defects registry and birth certificates. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services vital records. We performed logistic regression, adjusting for maternal education, race/ethnicity, enrollment in public pre-Kindergarten, and gestational age, to determine the association of CHD with not meeting standards on reading and math end-of-grade examinations in third grade in 2006 to 2012. Of 5624 subjects with CHD and 10 832 with no structural birth defects, 2807 (50%) and 6355 (59%) were linked, respectively. Children with CHD had 1.24× the odds of not meeting standards in either reading or math (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.37), with 44.6% of children with CHD not meeting standards in at least one of these areas compared with 37.5% without CHD. Although children with both critical and noncritical CHD had poorer outcomes, those with critical CHD were significantly more likely to receive exceptional services compared with the noncritical group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Children with all types of CHD have poorer academic outcomes compared with their peers. Evaluation for exceptional services should be considered in children with any type of CHD.
BACKGROUND: Most studies evaluating neurocognitive outcomes in children with congenital heart defects (CHD) have focused on high-risk patients or used specialized, resource-intensive testing. To determine the association of CHD with academic outcomes and compare outcomes according to the severity of CHD, we linked state educational records with a birth defects registry and birth certificates. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services vital records. We performed logistic regression, adjusting for maternal education, race/ethnicity, enrollment in public pre-Kindergarten, and gestational age, to determine the association of CHD with not meeting standards on reading and math end-of-grade examinations in third grade in 2006 to 2012. Of 5624 subjects with CHD and 10 832 with no structural birth defects, 2807 (50%) and 6355 (59%) were linked, respectively. Children with CHD had 1.24× the odds of not meeting standards in either reading or math (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.37), with 44.6% of children with CHD not meeting standards in at least one of these areas compared with 37.5% without CHD. Although children with both critical and noncritical CHD had poorer outcomes, those with critical CHD were significantly more likely to receive exceptional services compared with the noncritical group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.86). CONCLUSIONS:Children with all types of CHD have poorer academic outcomes compared with their peers. Evaluation for exceptional services should be considered in children with any type of CHD.
Authors: Matthew E Oster; Kyung A Lee; Margaret A Honein; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Mikyong Shin; Adolfo Correa Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jason Homsy; Samir Zaidi; Yufeng Shen; James S Ware; Kaitlin E Samocha; Konrad J Karczewski; Steven R DePalma; David McKean; Hiroko Wakimoto; Josh Gorham; Sheng Chih Jin; John Deanfield; Alessandro Giardini; George A Porter; Richard Kim; Kaya Bilguvar; Francesc López-Giráldez; Irina Tikhonova; Shrikant Mane; Angela Romano-Adesman; Hongjian Qi; Badri Vardarajan; Lijiang Ma; Mark Daly; Amy E Roberts; Mark W Russell; Seema Mital; Jane W Newburger; J William Gaynor; Roger E Breitbart; Ivan Iossifov; Michael Ronemus; Stephan J Sanders; Jonathan R Kaltman; Jonathan G Seidman; Martina Brueckner; Bruce D Gelb; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Richard P Lifton; Christine E Seidman; Wendy K Chung Journal: Science Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Daniel Seung Kim; Jerry H Kim; Amber A Burt; David R Crosslin; Nancy Burnham; Donna M McDonald-McGinn; Elaine H Zackai; Susan C Nicolson; Thomas L Spray; Ian B Stanaway; Deborah A Nickerson; Mark W Russell; Hakon Hakonarson; J William Gaynor; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Andrew Autry; Hilda Razzaghi; Coleen A Boyle; William T Mahle; Kim Van Naarden Braun; Adolfo Correa Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jane W Newburger; David Wypij; David C Bellinger; Adre J du Plessis; Karl C K Kuban; Leonard A Rappaport; Daniel Almirall; David L Wessel; Richard A Jonas; Gil Wernovsky Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Ariane Marelli; Steven P Miller; Bradley Scott Marino; Angela L Jefferson; Jane W Newburger Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: William T Mahle; Minmin Lu; Richard G Ohye; J William Gaynor; Caren S Goldberg; Lynn A Sleeper; Victoria L Pemberton; Kathleen A Mussatto; Ismee A Williams; Erica Sood; Catherine Dent Krawczeski; Alan Lewis; Nicole Mirarchi; Mark Scheurer; Sara K Pasquali; Nelangi Pinto; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Brian W McCrindle; Jane W Newburger Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Matthew J Strickland; Tiffany J Riehle-Colarusso; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Mark D Reller; William T Mahle; Lorenzo D Botto; Paige E Tolbert; Marshall L Jacobs; Francois G Lacour-Gayet; Christo I Tchervenkov; Constantine Mavroudis; Adolfo Correa Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Kristi L Glotzbach; John J Ward; Jennifer Marietta; Aaron W Eckhauser; Sarah Winter; Michael D Puchalski; Thomas A Miller Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: James K Moon; Kendall M Lawrence; Mallory L Hunt; Marcus G Davey; Alan W Flake; Daniel J Licht; Jonathan M Chen; Todd J Kilbaugh; J William Gaynor; Daniel P Beiting Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2022-05-05