Advertisement

Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 465–472 | Cite as

The Impact of Fetal Echocardiography on the Prevalence of Liveborn Congenital Heart Disease

  • Ioannis GermanakisEmail author
  • Stavros Sifakis
Article

Abstract

Fetal echocardiography allows for early detection of congenital heart disease, and pregnancy termination may be an option in cases of complex defects. In the current study, the most important factors contributing to the diagnosis and termination of affected pregnancies are reviewed and their combined effect on the future prevalence of liveborn congenital heart disease is evaluated. The relative reduction of the prevalence of the most severe forms of congenital heart disease is estimated as the product of the probability that (1) a fetal cardiac screening is performed (p evaluation), (2) an affected pregnancy is detected (P detection), (3) pregnancy termination is decided following antenatal diagnosis (P decision). In areas where termination of pregnancy is a realistic and supported option, a universal sonographic screening of all pregnancies (P evaluation = 1), with an average reported sensitivity of 35% and a termination rate of 43% following antenatal diagnosis, would result in a 15% overall reduction of the prevalence of the most severe forms of congenital heart disease. However, wide variability exists regarding the defect-specific estimates (2–50% prevalence relative reduction) due to considerable differences in the reported diagnostic sensitivity and termination rates associated with each heart defect. If an earlier diagnosis could be achieved, which is reported to be associated with an average 1.4-fold increased probability of termination, the overall reduction of the prevalence of congenital heart disease could approach 21%. As the skills of obstetric and pediatric cardiology sonographers improve, fetal echocardiography is expected to have a substantial impact on the future epidemiology of liveborn congenital heart disease.

Keywords

Prenatal diagnosis Fetal echocardiography Congenital heart disease Pregnancy termination Epidemiology 

References

  1. 1.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins (2004) AGOG practice bulletin No 58. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 58:1449–1458Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allan LD (2003) Cardiac anatomy screening: what is the best time for screening in pregnancy? Curr Opin Obset Gynecol 15:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allan LD, Apfel HD, Printz BF (1998) Outcome after prenatal diagnosis of the hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Heart 79:371–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allan LD, Cook A, Sullivan I, Sharland GK (1991) Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: effects of fetal echocardiography on birth prevalence. Lancet 127:959–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allan LD, Huggon IC (2004) Counselling following a diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Prenat Diagn 24:1136–1142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allan LD, Sharland GK (2001) The echocardiographic diagnosis of totally anomalous pulmonary venous connection in the fetus. Heart 85:433–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allan LD, Sharland GK, Milburn A, et al. (1994) Prospective diagnosis of 1,006 consecutive cases of congenital heart disease in the fetus. J Am Coll Cardial 23:1452–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayme S, Morichon N, Goujard J, Nisand I (1997) Prenatal diagnosis in France. Eur J Hum Genet 5(S1):26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bleyer WA (1990) The impact of childhood cancer on the United States and the world. Cancer J Clin 40:354–367Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brackley KJ, Kilby MD, Wright JG, et al. (2000) Outcome after prenatal diagnosis of hypoplastic left-heart syndrome: a case series. Lancet 356:1143–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brick DH, Allan LD (2002) Outcome of prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease: an update. Pediatr Cardiol 23:449–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bull C (1999) Current and potential impact of fetal diagnosis on prevalence and spectrum of serious congenital heart disease at term in the UK. British Paediatric Cardiac Association. Lancet 354:1242–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buskens E, Steyerberg EW, Hess J, Wladimiroff JW, Grobbee DE (1997) Routine prenatal screening for congenital heart disease: what can be expected? A decision-analytic approach. Am J Public Health 87:962–967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, et al. (1993) Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 329:821–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferencz C, Rubin JD, McCarter RJ, et al. (1985) Congenital heart disease: prevalence at livebirth. The Baltimore-Washington Infant Study. Am J Epidemiol 121:31–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fesslova V, Nava S, Villa L (1999) Evolution and long term outcome in cases with fetal diagnosis of congenital heart disease: Italian multicentre study. Fetal Cardiology Study Group of the Italian Society of Pediatric Cardiology. Heart 52:594–599Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garne E, Stoll C, Clementi M, Euro scan Group (2001) Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart diseases by ultrasound: experience from 20 European registries. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S (1999) The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:446–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huggon IC, Ghi T, Cook AC, et al. (2002) Fetal cardiac abnormalities identified prior to 14 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20:22–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huggon IC, Turan O, Allan LD (2004) Doppler assessment of cardiac function at 11–14 weeks’ gestation in fetuses with normal and increased nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24:390–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2006) Cardiac screening examination of the fetus: guidelines for performing the “basic” and “extended scan” cardiac scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jaeggi ET, Sholler GF, Jones OD, Cooper SG (2001) Comparative analysis of pattern, management and outcome of pre- versus postnatally diagnosed major congenital heart disease: a population-based study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 77:380–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Julian-Reynier C, Philip N, Scheiner C, et al. (1994) Impact of prenatal diagnosis by ultrasound on the prevalence of congenital anomalies at birth in southern France. J Epidemiol Community Health 48:290–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kenyon SL, Hackett GA, Campbell S (1988) Termination of pregnancy following diagnosis of fetal malformation: the need for improved follow-up services. Clin Obstet Gynecol 57:97–100Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Vodovar V, et al. (2005) Trends in prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy termination, and perinatal mortality of newborns with congenital heart disease in France. 1983–2000: a population based evaluation. Pediatrics 115:95–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luck CA (1992) Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. Br Med J 304:1474–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyer-Wittkopf M, Cooper S, Sholler G (2001) Correlation between fetal cardiac diagnosis by obstetric and pediatric cardiologist sonographers and comparison with postnatal findings. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 77:392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montana E, Klioury MJ, Cragan JD, et al. (1996) Trends and outcomes after prenatal diagnosis of congenital cardiac malformations by fetal echocardiography in a well defined birth population. Atlanta, Georgia, 1990–1994. J Am Coll Cardiol 28:1805–1809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (2003) Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Clinical Guideline No. 213280Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Renaud M, Bouchard L, Kremp O, et al. (1993) Is selective abortion for a genetic disease an issue for the medical profession? A comparative study of Quebec and France. Prenat Diagn 13:691–706PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rychik J, Ayres N, Cuneo B, et al. (2004) American Society of Echocardiography guidelines and standards for performance of the fetal echocardiogram. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 17:803–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sclimidt KG, deAraujo L, Silverman NH (1998) Evaluation of structural and functional abnormalities of the fetal heart by echocardiography. Am J Cardiac Imaging 2:57–76Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sklansky M, Shauglinessy R, Lucas V, Kashani I, Rothman A (2000) A comparison of fetal echocardiography in university and health maintenance organization settings. Pediatr Cardiol 27:234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smythe JF, Copel JA, Kleinman CS (1992) Outcome of prenatally detected cardiac malformations. Am J Cardiol 69:1471–1474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stumpflen I, Stumpflen A, Wimmer M, Bernaschek G (1996) Effect of detailed fetal echocardiography as part of routine prenatal ultrasonographic screening on detection of congenital heart disease. Lancet 348:854–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tworetzky W, McElhinney DB, Reddy VM, et al. (2001) Improved surgical outcome after fetal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Circulation 703:1269–1273Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verheijen PM, Lisowski LA, Stoutenbeek P, et al. (2001) Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease affects preoperative acidosis in the newborn patient. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 12:798–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zimmer EZ, Avraham Z, Sujoy P, Goldstein I, Bronshtein M (1997) The influence of prenatal ultrasound on the prevalence of congenital anomalies at birth. Prenat Diagn 17:623–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Cardiology UnitUniversity Hospital of HeraklionCreteGreece
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal Fetal Medicine UnitUniversity Hospital of HeraklionCreteGreece

Personalised recommendations