Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Providers’ Attitudes to Proposed Changes in the Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Algorithm

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

Abstract

Screening for critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) in newborns based on a 2009 Swedish study has become the standard of care despite the complexity of the algorithm. A simplified algorithm which might increase the false-positive rate was proposed in 2020 but not formally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. We sought to determine how the current protocol and the proposed changes are perceived by clinicians. We performed an anonymous survey of professionals involved in the care of newborns regarding their perception of the current and proposed CCHD screening algorithms. 335 responses were evaluated. Less than 2% of respondents were dissatisfied with the existing screening algorithm or felt it was difficult to perform. 47% endorsed and 12% opposed the adoption of the proposed modifications with those most familiar with the proposed changes more likely to endorse them. Although many providers would accept a higher false-positive rate in CCHD screening, those who would have to transfer a baby from the birth site for assessment after a failed CCHD screening were less tolerant of an increased false-positive rate. Although the existing CCHD screening mechanisms appear to be very well received, the proposed changes to the CCHD algorithm were viewed positively by many respondents. Changes in this algorithm would likely be better tolerated in those setting where the consequences of a failed CCHD screening are more easily addressed.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wren C, Reinhardt Z, Khawaja K (2008) Twenty-year trends in diagnosis of life-threatening neonatal cardiovascular malformations. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 93(1):F33–F35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mellander M, Sunnegardh J (2006) Failure to diagnose critical heart malformations in newborns before discharge–an increasing problem? Acta Paediatr 95(4):407–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffman JI, Kaplan S (2002) The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 39(12):1890–1900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. de-Wahl Granelli A, Wennergren M, Sandberg K, Mellander M, Bejlum C, Inganas L et al (2009) Impact of pulse oximetry screening on the detection of duct dependent congenital heart disease: a Swedish prospective screening study in 39,821 newborns. BMJ 338:a3037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin GR, Beekman RH 3rd, Mikula EB, Fasules J, Garg LF, Kemper AR et al (2013) Implementing recommended screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 132(1):e185–e192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kemper AR, Mahle WT, Martin GR, Cooley WC, Kumar P, Morrow WR et al (2011) Strategies for implementing screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 128(5):e1259–e1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Abouk R, Grosse SD, Ailes EC, Oster ME (2017) Association of US state implementation of newborn screening policies for critical congenital heart disease with early infant cardiac deaths. JAMA 318(21):2111–2118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin GR, Ewer AK, Gaviglio A, Hom LA, Saarinen A, Sontag M et al (2020) Updated strategies for pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1650

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Garg LF, Van Naarden BK, Knapp MM, Anderson TM, Koppel RI, Hirsch D et al (2013) Results from the New Jersey statewide critical congenital heart defects screening program. Pediatrics 132(2):e314–e323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwartz BN, Hom LA, Von Kohorn I, Becker J, Cuzzi SS, Clarke SEG et al (2021) Newborn pulse oximetry screening at a community hospital: an 8-year experience. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-049847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ewer AK, Middleton LJ, Furmston AT, Bhoyar A, Daniels JP, Thangaratinam S et al (2011) Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects in newborn infants (PulseOx): a test accuracy study. Lancet 378(9793):785–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhao QM, Ma XJ, Ge XL, Liu F, Yan WL, Wu L et al (2014) Pulse oximetry with clinical assessment to screen for congenital heart disease in neonates in China: a prospective study. Lancet 384:747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wisconsin Interactive Statistics on Health (WISH) (2020) Birth counts module. Accessed from https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/wish/birth/form.htm.

  14. Lhost JJ, Goetz EM, Belling JD, van Roojen WM, Spicer G, Hokanson JS (2014) Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease in planned out-of-hospital births. J Pediatr 165:485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller KK, Vig KS, Goetz EM, Spicer G, Yang AJ, Hokanson JS (2016) Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease in planned out of hospital births and the incidence of critical congenital heart disease in the plain community. J Perinatol 36(12):1088–1091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Williams KB, Horst M, Hollinger EA, Freedman J, Demczko MM, Chowdhury D (2021) Newborn pulse oximetry for infants born out-of-hospital. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-048785

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Beissel DJGEM, Hokanson JS (2011) Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart disease in Wisconsin. Congenit Heart Dis 6(5):521–522

    Google Scholar 

  18. McClain MR, Hokanson JS, Grazel R, Van Naarden BK, Garg LF, Morris MR et al (2017) Critical congenital heart disease newborn screening implementation: lessons learned. Matern Child Health J 21(6):1240–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of the Wisconsin Guild of Midwives, Wisconsin Association for Perinatal Care, Wisconsin Chapter of the AAP, Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, AAP section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery and the online Pediheart community for participating in this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. JCW and JSH wrote and distributed the survey. XZ supervised JCW in data analysis. JCW wrote the first draft of this manuscript with subsequent contributions by XZ and JSH.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Smith Hokanson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No funds, grants, or other support were sought or received. The authors received no compensation to produce this manuscript. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

There are no prior publications with any overlapping information, although the results of this project were presented in poster form at the 2021 Midwest Pediatric Cardiology Society Annual Meeting and the 2021 AAP Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery meeting.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 69 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walters, J.C., Zhang, X. & Hokanson, J.S. Providers’ Attitudes to Proposed Changes in the Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Algorithm. Pediatr Cardiol 43, 1354–1358 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-022-02858-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-022-02858-4

Keywords

Navigation