Shridhar Gopalakrishnan1, Saurabh Karmani2, Abhishek Pandey3, Navreet Singh4, J Ratheesh Kumar5, Ramar Praveen6, Kirandeep Sodhi7. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India. 2. Associate Professor (Pediatrics), MM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Ambala, India. 3. Classified Specialist (Pediatrics), Military Hospital Golconda, Hyderabad, India. 4. Senior Adviser (Medicine) & Cardiologist, AFCME, New Delhi, India. 5. Senior Adviser (Medicine) & Cardiologist, Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata, India. 6. Classified Specialist (Pediatrics) & Neonatologist, Command Hospital (Western Command), Chandimandir, India. 7. Professor (Pediatrics), MM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Ambala, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critical congenital heart diseases (CCHDs), 10% to 25% of all CHD, are duct-dependent defects that are life threatening without intervention in the neonatal period or infancy. One third of neonates with CCHDs are discharged home undetected and have a poorer outcome. Pulse oximetry screening before discharge is increasingly being used to diagnose CCHDs in developed countries. METHODS: This prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care hospital from September 2016 to March 2019 screened all asymptomatic intramural neonates after 24 hours of life using a Masimo pulse oximeter with signal extraction technology using the standard American Academy of Pediatrics algorithm. A positive screen was followed by a confirmatory echocardiography (gold standard) and a negative screen by clinical examination at 6, 10 and 14 weeks and identification of readmissions during the study period. RESULTS: A total of 1855 neonates (82.99% of the eligible 2235 neonates) underwent screening at a mean (SD) age at screening of 32.4 (6.8) hours and took a mean (SD) time of 3.5 (1.2) minutes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of pulse oximetry screening for detection of CCHDs in asymptomatic neonates was 75% (95% CI: 28.91% to 96.59%), 99.29% (95% CI: 98.79% to 99.60%), 18.75% (95% CI: 5.80% to 43.80%) and 99.94% (95% CI: 99.66 to 99.99%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Pulse oximetry screening of asymptomatic neonates between 24 and 48 hours of life improved the detection of CCHDs with high specificity and negative predictive value, moderate sensitivity and a reasonably low false positivity rate.
BACKGROUND: Critical congenital heart diseases (CCHDs), 10% to 25% of all CHD, are duct-dependent defects that are life threatening without intervention in the neonatal period or infancy. One third of neonates with CCHDs are discharged home undetected and have a poorer outcome. Pulse oximetry screening before discharge is increasingly being used to diagnose CCHDs in developed countries. METHODS: This prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care hospital from September 2016 to March 2019 screened all asymptomatic intramural neonates after 24 hours of life using a Masimo pulse oximeter with signal extraction technology using the standard American Academy of Pediatrics algorithm. A positive screen was followed by a confirmatory echocardiography (gold standard) and a negative screen by clinical examination at 6, 10 and 14 weeks and identification of readmissions during the study period. RESULTS: A total of 1855 neonates (82.99% of the eligible 2235 neonates) underwent screening at a mean (SD) age at screening of 32.4 (6.8) hours and took a mean (SD) time of 3.5 (1.2) minutes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of pulse oximetry screening for detection of CCHDs in asymptomatic neonates was 75% (95% CI: 28.91% to 96.59%), 99.29% (95% CI: 98.79% to 99.60%), 18.75% (95% CI: 5.80% to 43.80%) and 99.94% (95% CI: 99.66 to 99.99%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Pulse oximetry screening of asymptomatic neonates between 24 and 48 hours of life improved the detection of CCHDs with high specificity and negative predictive value, moderate sensitivity and a reasonably low false positivity rate.
Authors: A K Ewer; A T Furmston; L J Middleton; J J Deeks; J P Daniels; H M Pattison; R Powell; T E Roberts; P Barton; P Auguste; A Bhoyar; S Thangaratinam; A M Tonks; P Satodia; S Deshpande; B Kumararatne; S Sivakumar; R Mupanemunda; K S Khan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Kenny K Wong; Anne Fournier; Deborah S Fruitman; Lisa Graves; Derek G Human; Michael Narvey; Jennifer L Russell Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Cora Peterson; Elizabeth Ailes; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Matthew E Oster; Richard S Olney; Cynthia H Cassell; David E Fixler; Suzan L Carmichael; Gary M Shaw; Suzanne M Gilboa Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 16.193
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: Circulation Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 29.690