Erin Bugenske Stallings1, Jennifer L Isenburg1, Deepa Aggarwal2, Philip J Lupo3, Matthew E Oster1, Hanna Shephard4,5, Rebecca F Liberman4, Russell S Kirby6, Eirini Nestoridi4, Brenda Hansen2, Xiaoyi Shan7, Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez8, Aubree Boyce9, Dominique Heinke4. 1. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. California Birth Defects Monitoring Program, Genetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, California, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 6. College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA. 7. Arkansas Reproductive Health Monitoring System, Arkansas Children's Research Institute, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA. 8. Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance, Texas Department of State Health Services, Houston, Texas, USA. 9. Utah Birth Defect Network, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) are one of the most common types of birth defects and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality along with surgical or catheter interventions within the first year of life. This report updates previously published estimates of CCHD prevalence with the latest population-based surveillance data from 19 birth defect surveillance programs. METHODS: The U.S. population-based surveillance programs submitted data on identified cases of 12 CCHDs and co-occurring cardiovascular and chromosomal birth defects from 2014 to 2018. We estimated prevalence by program type and maternal and infant characteristics. Among nine programs with active case ascertainment that collect more than live births, we estimated the percentage of co-occurring cardiovascular and chromosomal birth defects for the 12 CCHDs. RESULTS: We identified 18,587 cases of CCHD among all participating programs. Overall CCHD prevalence was 19.6 per 10,000 live births among all 19 programs and 20.2 per 10,000 live births among active programs. Among maternal racial/ethnic groups, infants/fetuses born to American Indian/Alaska Native mothers showed the highest overall prevalence for all CCHDs (28.3 per 10,000) along with eight of the 12 individual CCHDs. Among 7,726 infants/fetuses with CCHD from active case ascertainment programs, 15.8% had at least one co-occurring chromosomal birth defect. CONCLUSION: Our study provides prevalence estimates for CCHDs by maternal and infant characteristics along with co-occurrence with cardiovascular and chromosomal birth defects among infants/fetuses with CCHD using one of the largest and most recent cohorts since the implementation of widespread CCHD screening. These data can provide a basis for future research to better understand risk factors for these defects.
BACKGROUND: Critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) are one of the most common types of birth defects and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality along with surgical or catheter interventions within the first year of life. This report updates previously published estimates of CCHD prevalence with the latest population-based surveillance data from 19 birth defect surveillance programs. METHODS: The U.S. population-based surveillance programs submitted data on identified cases of 12 CCHDs and co-occurring cardiovascular and chromosomal birth defects from 2014 to 2018. We estimated prevalence by program type and maternal and infant characteristics. Among nine programs with active case ascertainment that collect more than live births, we estimated the percentage of co-occurring cardiovascular and chromosomal birth defects for the 12 CCHDs. RESULTS: We identified 18,587 cases of CCHD among all participating programs. Overall CCHD prevalence was 19.6 per 10,000 live births among all 19 programs and 20.2 per 10,000 live births among active programs. Among maternal racial/ethnic groups, infants/fetuses born to American Indian/Alaska Native mothers showed the highest overall prevalence for all CCHDs (28.3 per 10,000) along with eight of the 12 individual CCHDs. Among 7,726 infants/fetuses with CCHD from active case ascertainment programs, 15.8% had at least one co-occurring chromosomal birth defect. CONCLUSION: Our study provides prevalence estimates for CCHDs by maternal and infant characteristics along with co-occurrence with cardiovascular and chromosomal birth defects among infants/fetuses with CCHD using one of the largest and most recent cohorts since the implementation of widespread CCHD screening. These data can provide a basis for future research to better understand risk factors for these defects.
Authors: Cara T Mai; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Alissa O'Halloran; Janet D Cragan; Richard S Olney; Angela Lin; Marcia Feldkamp; Lorenzo D Botto; Russel Rickard; Marlene Anderka; Mary Ethen; Carol Stanton; Joan Ehrhardt; Mark Canfield Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2012-12
Authors: Nelson D Pace; Matthew E Oster; Nina E Forestieri; Dianne Enright; Jessica Knight; Robert E Meyer Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 7.124
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: Gerard R Martin; Andrew K Ewer; Amy Gaviglio; Lisa A Hom; Annamarie Saarinen; Marci Sontag; Kristin M Burns; Alex R Kemper; Matthew E Oster Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Nina Øyen; Gry Poulsen; Heather A Boyd; Jan Wohlfahrt; Peter K A Jensen; Mads Melbye Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-07-13 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Pediatrics Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: B Marino; M C Digilio; A Toscano; S Anaclerio; A Giannotti; C Feltri; M A de Ioris; A Angioni; B Dallapiccola Journal: Genet Med Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 8.822