Christine L van Velzen1, Johannes C F Ket2, Peter M van de Ven3, Nico A Blom4,5, Monique C Haak6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2. Medical library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 4. Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 5. Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prenatal detection rate of congenital heart defects (CHDs) is increasing, but reported rates vary. OBJECTIVES: To determine the performance of the second-trimester anomaly scan to detect CHD. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies in any language from inception to February 3, 2017. The search terms included "prenatal diagnosis" or "pregnancy," "cardiovascular diseases" or "cardiac defects," "congenital," and "specificity," or "sensitivity," or "cohort study." SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies assessing the detection rate of CHD during population-based prenatal screening from 1995 were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected from identified studies; authors were approached for additional data when necessary. A review and meta-analysis were performed. When possible, separate analyses were undertaken for isolated CHD cases. MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis of seven studies showed the pooled detection rate of CHD in unselected populations as 45.1% (95% confidence interval 33.5%-57.0%). However, the rate of detection of univentricular defects and heterotaxy was above 85%. Similar rates were found among cases of isolated CHD. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal detection showed a strong correlation with CHD severity. The detection of conotruncal anomalies needs to improve. A thoroughly organized screening program will be essential to achieve a higher detection rate.
BACKGROUND: The prenatal detection rate of congenital heart defects (CHDs) is increasing, but reported rates vary. OBJECTIVES: To determine the performance of the second-trimester anomaly scan to detect CHD. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies in any language from inception to February 3, 2017. The search terms included "prenatal diagnosis" or "pregnancy," "cardiovascular diseases" or "cardiac defects," "congenital," and "specificity," or "sensitivity," or "cohort study." SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies assessing the detection rate of CHD during population-based prenatal screening from 1995 were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected from identified studies; authors were approached for additional data when necessary. A review and meta-analysis were performed. When possible, separate analyses were undertaken for isolated CHD cases. MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis of seven studies showed the pooled detection rate of CHD in unselected populations as 45.1% (95% confidence interval 33.5%-57.0%). However, the rate of detection of univentricular defects and heterotaxy was above 85%. Similar rates were found among cases of isolated CHD. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal detection showed a strong correlation with CHD severity. The detection of conotruncal anomalies needs to improve. A thoroughly organized screening program will be essential to achieve a higher detection rate.
Authors: L Noben; C Lempersz; E R van den Heuvel; Z Zhan; F P H A Vandenbussche; A B C Coumans; M C Haak; R Vullings; S G Oei; S A B Clur; J O E H van Laar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Anita Krishnan; Marni B Jacobs; Shaine A Morris; Shabnam Peyvandi; Aarti H Bhat; Anjali Chelliah; Joanne S Chiu; Bettina F Cuneo; Grace Freire; Lisa K Hornberger; Lisa Howley; Nazia Husain; Catherine Ikemba; Ann Kavanaugh-McHugh; Shelby Kutty; Caroline Lee; Keila N Lopez; Angela McBrien; Erik C Michelfelder; Nelangi M Pinto; Rachel Schwartz; Kenan W D Stern; Carolyn Taylor; Varsha Thakur; Wayne Tworetzky; Carol Wittlieb-Weber; Kris Woldu; Mary T Donofrio Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: A E L van Nisselrooij; A K K Teunissen; S A Clur; L Rozendaal; E Pajkrt; I H Linskens; L Rammeloo; J M M van Lith; N A Blom; M C Haak Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Marian K Bakker; Jorieke E H Bergman; Sergey Krikov; Emmanuelle Amar; Guido Cocchi; Janet Cragan; Hermien E K de Walle; Miriam Gatt; Boris Groisman; Shiliang Liu; Wendy N Nembhard; Anna Pierini; Anke Rissmann; Shanthi Chidambarathanu; Antonin Sipek; Elena Szabova; Giovanna Tagliabue; David Tucker; Pierpaolo Mastroiacovo; Lorenzo D Botto Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alex Friedman Peahl; Alli Novara; Michele Heisler; Vanessa K Dalton; Michelle H Moniz; Roger D Smith Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.623