Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Benefits and Bias in Neurodevelopmental Evaluation for Children with Congenital Heart Disease

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neurodevelopmental (ND) impairment is common in children with congenital heart disease (CHD). While routine ND surveillance and evaluation of high-risk patients has become the standard-of-care, capture rate, barriers to referral, and potential patient benefits remain incompletely understood. Electronic data warehouse records from a single center were reviewed to identify all eligible and evaluated patients between July 2015 and December 2017 based on current guidelines for ND screening in CHD. Diagnoses, referring provider, and payor were considered. Potential benefit of the evaluation was defined as receipt of new diagnosis, referral for additional evaluation, or referral for a new service. Contingencies were assessed with Fisher’s exact test. In this retrospective, cohort study, of 3434 children identified as eligible for ND evaluation, 135 were evaluated (4%). Appropriate evaluation was affected by diagnostic bias against coarctation of the aorta (CoArc) and favoring hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) (1.8 vs. 11.9%, p<0.01). Referrals were disproportionally made by a select group of cardiologists, and the rate of ND appointment non-compliance was higher in self-pay compared to insured patients (78% vs 27%, p<0.01). Potential benefit rate was 70–80% amongst individuals with the three most common diagnoses requiring neonatal surgery (CoArc, transposition of the great arteries, and HLHS). Appropriate ND evaluation in CHD is impacted by diagnosis, provider, and insurance status. Potential benefit of ND evaluation is high regardless of diagnosis. Strategies to improve access to ND evaluations and provider understanding of the at-risk population will likely improve longitudinal ND surveillance and clinical benefit.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoffman JI, Kaplan S (2002) The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:1890–1900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldberg CS et al (2014) Factors associated with neurodevelopment for children with single ventricle lesions. J Pediatr 165:490–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.05.019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaynor JW et al (2015) Neurodevelopmental outcomes after cardiac surgery in infancy. Pediatrics 135:816–825. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3825

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ringle ML, Wernovsky G (2016) Functional, quality of life, and neurodevelopmental outcomes after congenital cardiac surgery. Semin Perinatol 40:556–570. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2016.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mussatto KA et al (2014) Risk and prevalence of developmental delay in young children with congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 133:e570–e577. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2309

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Spittle A, Orton J, Anderson PJ, Boyd R, Doyle LW (2015) Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairment in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005495.pub4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marino BS et al (2012) Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease: evaluation and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 126:1143–1172. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e318265ee8a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Knutson S, Kelleman MS, Kochilas L (2016) Implementation of developmental screening guidelines for children with congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 176:135–141.e132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.05.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mahle WT, Wernovsky G (2001) Long-term developmental outcome of children with complex congenital heart disease. Clin Perinatol 28:235–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Oster ME, Watkins S, Hill KD, Knight JH, Meyer RE (2017) Academic outcomes in children with congenital heart defects: a population-based cohort study. Circulation 10(2):e003074. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.116.003074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sanz JH et al (2017) Prevalence and pattern of executive dysfunction in school age children with congenital heart disease. Congenit Heart Dis 12:202–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/chd.12427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mulkey SB et al (2016) School-age test proficiency and special education after congenital heart disease surgery in infancy. J Pediatr 178:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Simon BV et al (2019) Neurodevelopmental delay following the neonatal repair of coarctation and arch obstruction. Ann Thorac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Soto CB et al (2011) Implementation of a routine developmental follow-up program for children with congenital heart disease: early results. Congenit Heart Dis 6:451–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0803.2011.00546.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mussatto KA et al (2015) Risk factors for abnormal developmental trajectories in young children with congenital heart disease. Circulation 132:755–761. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.114.014521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Spittle AJ et al (2010) Preventive care at home for very preterm infants improves infant and caregiver outcomes at 2 years. Pediatrics 126:e171–e178. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patra K, Greene MM, Perez B, Silvestri JM (2014) Neonatal high-risk follow-up clinics: how to improve attendance in very low birthweight infants. E-J Neonatol Res 4(1):3–13

    Google Scholar 

  18. Michael M, Scharf R, Letzkus L, Vergales J (2016) Improving neurodevelopmental surveillance and follow-up in infants with congenital heart disease. Congenit Heart Dis 11:183–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/chd.12333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Loccoh EC et al (2018) Prevalence and risk factors associated with non-attendance in neurodevelomental follow-up clinic among infants with CHD. Cardiol Young 28:554–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1047951117002748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chorna O et al (2016) Feasibility of a team approach to complex congenital heart defect neurodevelopmental follow-up: early experience of a combined cardiology/neonatal intensive care unit follow-up program. Circulation 9:432–440. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.116.002614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded by internal or external funding sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristi L. Glotzbach.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, there was no direct contact with participants. The data was collected through medical chart review. Informed consent was waived and this waiver was approved by the University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital Institutional Review Board.

Research Involving Human and Animal Participants

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glotzbach, K.L., Ward, J.J., Marietta, J. et al. The Benefits and Bias in Neurodevelopmental Evaluation for Children with Congenital Heart Disease. Pediatr Cardiol 41, 327–333 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-019-02260-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-019-02260-7

Keywords

Navigation