Christina L Diller1,2, Michael S Kelleman1, Kenneth G Kupke3, Sharon C Quary3, Lazaros K Kochilas1,2, Matthew E Oster4,2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia; and. 3. Northside Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; osterm@kidsheart.com.
Abstract
: media-1vid110.1542/5727212367001PEDS-VA_2017-4065Video Abstract OBJECTIVES: Determine the performance of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) newborn screening algorithm and the impact of an alternative algorithm. METHODS: Screening was performed on term infants without a known CCHD diagnosis at or near 24 hours of age at a tertiary birth hospital by using the AAP algorithm from 2013 to 2016. Retrospective review from the birth hospital and the area's sole pediatric cardiac center identified true- and false-positives and true- and false-negatives. A simulation study modeled the results of a modified screening algorithm with a single repeat pulse oximetry test instead of 2. RESULTS: Screening results were collected on 77 148 newborns . By using the current AAP algorithm, 77 114 (99.96%) infants passed screening, 18 infants failed for an initial saturation of <90%, and 16 failed after not attaining a passing pulse oximetry level after 3 tests. There was 1 true-positive (total anomalous pulmonary venous return), 33 false-positives, and 6 false-negatives, yielding an overall specificity of 99.96%, a sensitivity of 14.3%, and a false-positive rate of 0.043%. Among false-positives, 10 (31.3%) had significant non-CCHD disease. Simulating the modified algorithm, sensitivity remained at 14.3%, and the false-positive rate increased to 0.054%. CONCLUSIONS: Although CCHD screening in a tertiary care birth hospital may not detect many new cases of CCHD, it can detect other important diseases in newborns. Modifying the screening algorithm to 1 repeat pulse oximetry test instead of 2 may detect additional infants with significant disease without a substantial increase in the false-positive rate.
: media-1vid110.1542/5727212367001PEDS-VA_2017-4065Video Abstract OBJECTIVES: Determine the performance of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) newborn screening algorithm and the impact of an alternative algorithm. METHODS: Screening was performed on term infants without a known CCHD diagnosis at or near 24 hours of age at a tertiary birth hospital by using the AAP algorithm from 2013 to 2016. Retrospective review from the birth hospital and the area's sole pediatric cardiac center identified true- and false-positives and true- and false-negatives. A simulation study modeled the results of a modified screening algorithm with a single repeat pulse oximetry test instead of 2. RESULTS: Screening results were collected on 77 148 newborns . By using the current AAP algorithm, 77 114 (99.96%) infants passed screening, 18 infants failed for an initial saturation of <90%, and 16 failed after not attaining a passing pulse oximetry level after 3 tests. There was 1 true-positive (total anomalous pulmonary venous return), 33 false-positives, and 6 false-negatives, yielding an overall specificity of 99.96%, a sensitivity of 14.3%, and a false-positive rate of 0.043%. Among false-positives, 10 (31.3%) had significant non-CCHD disease. Simulating the modified algorithm, sensitivity remained at 14.3%, and the false-positive rate increased to 0.054%. CONCLUSIONS: Although CCHD screening in a tertiary care birth hospital may not detect many new cases of CCHD, it can detect other important diseases in newborns. Modifying the screening algorithm to 1 repeat pulse oximetry test instead of 2 may detect additional infants with significant disease without a substantial increase in the false-positive rate.
Authors: Matthew J Campbell; William O Quarshie; Jennifer Faerber; David J Goldberg; Christopher E Mascio; Joshua J Blinder Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Rie Sakai-Bizmark; Hiraku Kumamaru; Emily H Marr; Lauren E M Bedel; Laurie A Mena; Anita Baghaee; Michael Nguyen; Dennys Estevez; Frank Wu; Ruey-Kang R Chang Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2022-10-23 Impact factor: 1.838
Authors: Matthew W Sorensen; Ismail Sadiq; Gari D Clifford; Kevin O Maher; Matthew E Oster Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Indah K Murni; Muhammad Taufik Wirawan; Linda Patmasari; Esta R Sativa; Nadya Arafuri; Sasmito Nugroho Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 2.125