Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Critical Congenital Heart Disease Newborn Screening Implementation: Lessons Learned

  • From the Field
  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 05 May 2017

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this article is to present the collective experiences of six federally-funded critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) newborn screening implementation projects to assist federal and state policy makers and public health to implement CCHD screening. Methods A qualitative assessment and summary from six demonstration project grantees and other state representatives involved in the implementation of CCHD screening programs are presented in the following areas: legislation, provider and family education, screening algorithms and interpretation, data collection and quality improvement, telemedicine, home and rural births, and neonatal intensive care unit populations. Results The most common challenges to implementation include: lack of uniform legislative and statutory mandates for screening programs, lack of funding/resources, difficulty in screening algorithm interpretation, limited availability of pediatric echocardiography, and integrating data collection and reporting with existing newborn screening systems. Identified solutions include: programs should consider integrating third party insurers and other partners early in the legislative/statutory process; development of visual tools and language modification to assist in the interpretation of algorithms, training programs for adult sonographers to perform neonatal echocardiography, building upon existing newborn screening systems, and using automated data transfer mechanisms. Discussion Continued and expanded surveillance, research, prevention and education efforts are needed to inform screening programs, with an aim to reduce morbidity, mortality and other adverse consequences for individuals and families affected by CCHD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  • Brown, K. L., Ridout, D. A., Hoskote, A., Verhulst, L., Ricci, M., & Bull, C. (2006). Delayed diagnosis of congenital heart disease worsens preoperative condition and outcome of surgery in neonates. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 92(9), 1298–1302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, L. F., Van Naarden Braun K, Knapp, M. M., et al. (2013). Results from the New Jersey statewide critical congenital heart defects screening program. Pediatrics, 132(2), e314–e323.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Glidewell, J., Olney, R. S., Hinton, C., et al. (2015). State legislation, regulations, and hospital guidelines for newborn screening for critical congenital heart defects - United States, 2011–2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(23), 625–630.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. I., & Kaplan, S. (2002). The incidence of congenital heart disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 39(12), 1890–1900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, A. R., Mahle, W. T., Martin, G. R., et al. (2011). Strategies for implementing screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics, 128(5), e1259–e1267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kochilas, L. K., Menk, J. S., Saarinen, A., Gaviglio, A., & Lohr, J. L. (2015). A comparison of retesting rates using alternative testing algorithms in the pilot implementation of critical congenital heart disease screening in Minnesota. Pediatric cardiology, 36(3), 550–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lakshminrusimha, S., Turkovich, S., Manja, V., Nair, J., & Kumar, V. H. (2012). Critical congenital heart disease screening with pulse oximetry in the neonatal intensive care unit. e-Journal of Neonatology Research, 2(2), 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lhost, J. J., Goetz, E. M., Belling, J. D., van Roojen, W. M., Spicer, G., & Hokanson, J. S. (2014). Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease in planned out-of-hospital births. The Journal of pediatrics, 165(3), 485–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, R. F., Getz, K. D., Lin, A. E., et al. (2014). Delayed diagnosis of critical congenital heart defects: trends and associated factors. Pediatrics, 134(2), e373–e381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mahle, W. T., Martin, G. R., Beekman, R. H. 3rd, et al. (2012). Endorsement of health and human services recommendation for pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics, 129(1), 190–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mahle, W. T., Newburger, J. W., Matherne, G. P., et al. (2009). Role of pulse oximetry in examining newborns for congenital heart disease: a scientific statement from the AHA and AAP. Pediatrics, 124(2), 823–836.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Osterman, M. J., Curtin, S. C., & Mathews, T. J. (2013). Births: final data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Report, 62(9), 1–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, B., & Hokanson, J. (2010). Missed congenital heart disease in neonates. Congenital Heart Disease, 5(3), 292–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olney, R. S., & Botto, L. D. (2012). Newborn screening for critical congenital heart disease: essential public health roles for birth defects monitoring programs. Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and Molecular Teratology, 94(12), 965–969.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., Ailes, E., Riehle-Colarusso, T., et al. (2014a). Late detection of critical congenital heart disease among US infants: estimation of the potential impact of proposed universal screening using pulse oximetry. JAMA pediatrics, 168(4), 361–370.

  • Peterson, C., Dawson, A., Grosse, S. D., et al. (2013a). Hospitalizations, costs, and mortality among infants with critical congenital heart disease: how important is timely detection? Birth Defects Research. Part A, Clinical and Molecular Teratology, 97(10), 664–672.

  • Peterson, C., Grosse, S. D., Glidewell, J., et al. (2014b). A public health economic assessment of hospitals’ cost to screen newborns for critical congenital heart disease. Public Health Reports, 129(1), 86–93.

  • Peterson, C., Grosse, S. D., Oster, M. E., Olney, R. S., & Cassell, C. H. (2013b). Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for critical congenital heart disease in US newborns. Pediatrics, 132(3), e595–e603.

  • Reller, M. D., Strickland, M. J., Riehle-Colarusso, T., Mahle, W. T., & Correa, A. (2008). Prevalence of congenital heart defects in metropolitan Atlanta, 1998–2005. The Journal of pediatrics, 153(6), 807–813.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Secretary’ s Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. (2015) Retrieved October 9, 2015 from http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders/recommendedpanel/uniformscreeningpanel.pdf.

  • Samuel, T. Y., Bromiker, R., Mimouni, F. B., et al. (2013). Newborn oxygen saturation at mild altitude versus sea level: implications for neonatal screening for critical congenital heart disease. Acta Paediatrica, 102(4), 379–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebelius K. (2011) Retrieved October 9, 2015 fom:http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders/recommendations/correspondence/cyanoticheartsecre09212011.pdf.

  • Wright, J., Kohn, M., Niermeyer, S., & Rausch, C. M. (2014). Feasibility of critical congenital heart disease newborn screening at moderate altitude. Pediatrics, 133(3), e561–e569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is/was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant numbers H46MC24058 (Michigan Department of Community Health), H46MC24060 (University of New Hampshire), H46MC24059 (New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services), H46MC24061 (Utah Department of Health), H46MC24062 (Virginia Department of Health), and H46MC24057 (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System). Each project was awarded $900,000, with 0% financed with nongovernmental sources. Additional funding for this project was supported by HRSA Cooperative Agreement #U22MC24078 (Association of Public Health Laboratories, NewSTEPs).

Disclaimer

The views and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HRSA, or HHS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica R. McClain.

Additional information

The original version of this article is revised. “The original version of this article listed one of the co-author name as Kim Naarden Van Braun. It should be Kim Van Naarden Braun.”

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2295-y.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 171 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McClain, M.R., Hokanson, J.S., Grazel, R. et al. Critical Congenital Heart Disease Newborn Screening Implementation: Lessons Learned. Matern Child Health J 21, 1240–1249 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2273-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2273-4

Keywords

Navigation