Rachel L Leon1, Philip T Levy2, June Hu3, Sushmita G Yallpragada3, Shannon E G Hamrick4, Molly K Ball5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Rachel.Leon@UTSouthwestern.edu. 2. Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many aspects of care for fetuses and neonates with congenital heart disease (CHD) fall outside standard practice guidelines, leading to the potential for significant variation in clinical care for this vulnerable population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of site sponsors of the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium, a multicenter collaborative of 41 Level IV neonatal intensive care units to assess key areas of clinical practice variability for patients with fetal and neonatal CHD. RESULTS: We received responses from 31 centers. Fetal consult services are shared by neonatology and pediatric cardiology at 70% of centers. Three centers (10%) routinely perform fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women with pregnancies complicated by fetal CHD. Genetic testing for CHD patients is routine at 76% of centers. Preoperative brain MRI is standard practice at 5 centers (17%), while cerebral NIRS monitoring is regularly used at 14 centers (48%). Use of electroencephalogram (EEG) after major cardiac surgery is routine in 5 centers (17%). Neurodevelopmental follow-up programs are offered at 30 centers (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Many aspects of fetal and neonatal CHD care are highly variable with evolving shared multidisciplinary models. IMPACT: Many aspects of fetal and neonatal CHD care are highly variable. Genetic testing, placental examination, preoperative neuroimaging, and postoperative EEG monitoring carry a high yield of finding abnormalities in patients with CHD and these tests may contribute to more precise prognostication and improve care. Evidence-based standards for prenatal and postnatal CHD care may decrease inter-center variability.
BACKGROUND: Many aspects of care for fetuses and neonates with congenital heart disease (CHD) fall outside standard practice guidelines, leading to the potential for significant variation in clinical care for this vulnerable population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of site sponsors of the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium, a multicenter collaborative of 41 Level IV neonatal intensive care units to assess key areas of clinical practice variability for patients with fetal and neonatal CHD. RESULTS: We received responses from 31 centers. Fetal consult services are shared by neonatology and pediatric cardiology at 70% of centers. Three centers (10%) routinely perform fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women with pregnancies complicated by fetal CHD. Genetic testing for CHD patients is routine at 76% of centers. Preoperative brain MRI is standard practice at 5 centers (17%), while cerebral NIRS monitoring is regularly used at 14 centers (48%). Use of electroencephalogram (EEG) after major cardiac surgery is routine in 5 centers (17%). Neurodevelopmental follow-up programs are offered at 30 centers (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Many aspects of fetal and neonatal CHD care are highly variable with evolving shared multidisciplinary models. IMPACT: Many aspects of fetal and neonatal CHD care are highly variable. Genetic testing, placental examination, preoperative neuroimaging, and postoperative EEG monitoring carry a high yield of finding abnormalities in patients with CHD and these tests may contribute to more precise prognostication and improve care. Evidence-based standards for prenatal and postnatal CHD care may decrease inter-center variability.
Authors: Denise van der Linde; Elisabeth E M Konings; Maarten A Slager; Maarten Witsenburg; Willem A Helbing; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W Lee; L Allan; J S Carvalho; R Chaoui; J Copel; G Devore; K Hecher; H Munoz; T Nelson; D Paladini; S Yagel Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: C Langston; C Kaplan; T Macpherson; E Manci; K Peevy; B Clark; C Murtagh; S Cox; G Glenn Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Shannon E G Hamrick; Molly K Ball; Ayan Rajgarhia; Beth Ann Johnson; Robert DiGeronimo; Philip T Levy Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Mark Sklansky; Alvin Tang; Denis Levy; Paul Grossfeld; Iraj Kashani; Robin Shaughnessy; Abraham Rothman Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Yogen Singh; Javier Urbano Villaescusa; Eduardo M da Cruz; Shane M Tibby; Gabriella Bottari; Rohit Saxena; Marga Guillén; Jesus Lopez Herce; Matteo Di Nardo; Corrado Cecchetti; Joe Brierley; Willem de Boode; Joris Lemson Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 9.097