| Literature DB >> 33660532 |
Philip Moons1,2,3, Sandra Skogby1,2,4, Ewa-Lena Bratt2,4, Liesl Zühlke3,5, Ariane Marelli6, Eva Goossens1,7,8.
Abstract
Background The majority of people born with congenital heart disease require lifelong cardiac follow-up. However, discontinuity of care is a recognized problem and appears to increase around the transition to adulthood. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of adolescents and emerging adults with congenital heart disease discontinuing cardiac follow-up. In pooled data, we investigated regional differences, disparities by disease complexity, and the impact of transition programs on the discontinuity of care. Methods and Results Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, and Web of Science. We identified 17 studies, which enrolled 6847 patients. A random effects meta-analysis of single proportions was performed according to the DerSimonian-Laird method. Moderator effects were computed to explore sources for heterogeneity. Discontinuity proportions ranged from 3.6% to 62.7%, with a pooled estimated proportion of 26.1% (95% CI, 19.2%-34.6%). A trend toward more discontinuity was observed in simple heart defects (33.7%; 95% CI, 15.6%-58.3%), compared with moderate (25.7%; 95% CI, 15.2%-40.1%) or complex congenital heart disease (22.3%; 95% CI, 16.5%-29.4%) (P=0.2372). Studies from the United States (34.0%; 95% CI, 24.3%-45.4%), Canada (25.7%; 95% CI, 17.0%-36.7%), and Europe (6.5%; 95% CI, 5.3%-7.9%) differed significantly (P=0.0004). Transition programs were shown to have the potential to reduce discontinuity of care (12.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-42.3%) compared with usual care (36.2%; 95% CI, 22.8%-52.2%) (P=0.1119). Conclusions This meta-analysis showed that there is a high proportion of discontinuity of care in young people with congenital heart disease. The highest discontinuity proportions were observed in studies from the United States and in patients with simple heart defects. It is suggested that transition programs have a protective effect. Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero. Unique identifier: CRD42020182413.Entities:
Keywords: care gaps; continuity of care; heart defects, congenital; lapse of care; lost to follow‐up; meta‐analysis; systematic review
Year: 2021 PMID: 33660532 PMCID: PMC8174191 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.019552
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Heart Assoc ISSN: 2047-9980 Impact factor: 5.501
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart of article selection.
PRISMA indicates preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses.
Methodological Characteristics of the Included Studies
| Author, y | Country | Sample Size for Analysis | #Simple Defects | #Moderate Defects | #Complex Defects | Concept | Operationalization | Age Range of Outcome Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reid, 2004 | Canada | 234 | … | … | 234 | Successful transfer | At least 1 visit to an ACHD center of the Canadian Adult Congenital Heart network | 18–22 y |
| Yeung, 2008 | USA | 158 | … | 88 | 57 | Lapse of care | Intervals of >2 y between the last pediatric and the first adult CHD visit | 18 y– |
| Mackie, 2009 | Canada | 292 | NR | NR | NR | Cardiology follow‐up | Any outpatient assessment by a cardiologist documented by billing data | 18–22 y |
| Goossens, 2011 | Belgium | 785 | 268 | 444 | 73 | No follow‐up | Currently not being in cardiac care was confirmed by self‐report | 16–25 y |
| Norris, 2013 | USA | 158 | … | 86 | 67 | Retention in care | Any cardiology clinic visit within 2 y of the study interview | 19–28 y |
| Gurvitz, 2013 | USA | 922 | 234 | 447 | 206 | Gaps in cardiology care | A >3‐y interval between any cardiology appointments (internal medicine, pediatric, or adult congenital cardiology) | 18 y– |
| Goossens, 2015 | USA | 230 | 94 | 75 | 61 | Cardiac follow‐up | At least 1 outpatient visit documented or self‐reported | 18–23 y |
| Not being in cardiac follow‐up | Complete cessation of cardiac care confirmed | |||||||
| Bohun, 2016 | USA | 229 | 77 | 102 | 50 | Lost to follow‐up | Not seen by any provider in the institution | 18 y– |
| Harbison, 2016 | USA | 33 | 11 | 16 | 6 | Successful transfer | Appointment with an adult cardiac provider within 2 y following the last pediatric cardiology visit. | 18–20 y |
| Goossens, 2018 | Canada | 2630 | … | … | 2630 | Cardiac surveillance | At least 1 visit to any specialized pediatric or CHD cardiologist documented in the Quebec CHD database | 12–24 y |
| Hergenroeder, 2018 | USA | 30 CG | … | 10 | 19 | Lapse of care | Intervals of >3 y between the last pediatric and the first adult CHD visit | 18–28 y |
| Kollengode, 2018 | USA | 58 | 16 | 26 | 11 | Maintenance of care | At least 1 ambulatory assessment by a cardiac provider within the same healthcare system <3 y after index visit | 18 y– |
| Loss of follow‐up | No documented ambulatory visits with a cardiac provider within the same healthcare system for ⩾3 y at the time of chart review | |||||||
| Mackie, 2018 | Canada | 63 CG | … | 49 | 14 | Excess time | The time interval of >3 mo between the final pediatric visit and the first adult visit minus the recommended time interval between these visits suggested by the pediatric cardiologists | 18–20.5 y |
| Vaikunth, 2018 | USA | 67 | 5 | 38 | 24 | Successful transfer | At least 1 visit in the ACHD clinic at the adult hospital | 18–23 y |
| Gaydos, 2020 | USA | 54 CG | 9 | 21 | 13 | Lost to follow‐up | Persistent absence from cardiac care for at least 6 mo beyond the recommended follow‐up time and without an upcoming visit scheduled or documentation of external transfer of care. | 18–20.5 y |
| Mondal, 2020 | Canada | 279 | 137 | 104 | 38 | Successful transfer | Attendance at the Adult Congenital Cardiac Clinic within 2 y of discharge from pediatric cardiology | 17–26 y |
| Skogby, 2020 | Sweden | 630 | 228 | 309 | 93 | Continuity of care | At least 1 cardiac follow‐up visit within the 5‐y period after intended transfer documented in the medical records or self‐reported | 18–23 y |
ACHD indicates adult congenital heart disease; CG, control group; and NR, not reported/not retrievable.
Derived from the articles or provided by the authors does not always sum up to the total sample size.
Formulated in terms of continuity.
Formulated in terms of discontinuity.
Upper age limit not determined.
Figure 2Graphical depiction of the inclusion of eligible patients (light blue) and the assessment of discontinuation of care (dark blue) in the 17 included studies.
ACHD indicates adult congenital heart disease; CHD, congenital heart disease; and PC, pediatric cardiology.
Figure 3Forest plot for discontinuity of care in people with congenital heart disease at the transitional age.
Figure 4Forest plots for discontinuity of care in people with congenital heart disease at the transitional age, by complexity of the heart defect.
Figure 5Forest plots for discontinuity of care in people with congenital heart disease at the transitional age, by region of the study.
Figure 6Forest plots for discontinuity of care in people with congenital heart disease following a transition program vs usual care.
Figure 7Discontinuity of care in people with congenital heart disease at the transitional age, globally, by region of the study, by complexity, and by implementation of transition programs.