Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:45:39.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early diagnosis and screening of congenital cardiac anomalies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2010

Saeed Dastgiri ,
Mahdieh Taghizadeh  and
Mohammad Heidarzadeh
Saeed Dastgiri
Affiliation:
National Public Health Management Centre, Department of Human Genetics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Mahdieh Taghizadeh*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Mohammad Heidarzadeh
Affiliation:
National Public Health Management Centre, Department of Human Genetics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
*
Correspondence to: M. Taghizadeh, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, PO Box 51666-14766, Tabriz, Iran. Tel: +98 411 336 4666; Fax: +98 411 336 4666; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considerable numbers of congenital cardiac anomalies are missed at the time of delivery. Study reports show that congenital cardiac anomalies are the second most common birth defect in many countries. Despite this fact, our previous study showed that the prevalence of congenital cardiac anomalies is the fifth most common one, indicating that many of these defects might not be properly diagnosed at the time of delivery and birth. The aim of this study was to estimate the missing frequency of congenital cardiac anomalies at the time of delivery and birth. The population of the study was 185,650 births in the Northwest region of Iran covered by the Tabriz Registry of Congenital Anomalies. A total of 451 children with congenital cardiac anomalies were studied in the region from 2000 to 2009. The expected prevalence of congenital cardiac anomalies at birth was estimated to be 24.2 per 10,000 births while a prevalence of 9.2 per 10,000 births was observed at the same time and place. This indicated that 59.1% of children with congenital cardiac anomalies were not identified at birth (p-value less than 0.05). This proportion increased by 13% over the study period from 2000 to 2009 (p-value greater than 0.1). Our findings indicated that a remarkable frequency of congenital cardiac anomalies was not diagnosed at birth because there was no paediatric cardiologist available at the time of birth in the gynaecology and obstetrics wards.

Keywords

Cardiac birth defectpaediatric cardiologyprevalence
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 194 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Botto, LD, Correa, A. Decreasing the burden of congenital heart anomalies: an epidemiologic evaluation of risk factors and survival. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2003; 18: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Lina, AE, Ardingerb, HH. Genetic epidemiology of cardiovascular malformations. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2005; 20: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hoffman, JIE, Kaplan, S. The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1890–1900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.EUROCAT Working Group. EUROCAT; http://www.ihe.be/eurocat, 2009.Google Scholar
5.International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. http://www.icbdsr.com, 2009.Google Scholar
6. Dastgiri, S, Imani, S, Kalankesh, L, Barzegar, M, Heidarzadeh, M. Congenital anomalies in Iran: a cross-sectional study on 1574 cases in the North-West of country. Child Care Health Dev 2007; 33: 257–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Knowles, R, Griebsch, I, Dezateux, C, Brown, J, Bull, C, Wren, C. Newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Quinlan, K. An 8-day-old infant with poor perfusion and diaphoresis. J Emerg Nurs 2000; 26: 85–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Moons, P, Sluysmans, T, De Wolf, D, et al. Congenital heart disease in 111 225 births in Belgium: birth prevalence, treatment and survival in the 21st century. Acta Paediatr 2009; 98: 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kovacheva, K, Simeonova, M, Velkova, A. Trend and causes of congenital anomalies in the Pleven Region, Blugaria. Balkan J. Med Genet 2009; 12: 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wren, C, Richmond, S, Donaldson, L. Presentation of congenital heart disease in infancy: implications for routine examination. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999; 80: F49–F53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Abu-Harb, M, Hey, E, Wren, C. Death in infancy from unrecognised congenital heart disease. Arch Dis Child 1994; 71: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Tabriz Registry of Congenital Anomalies (TRoCA). http://www.tbzmed.ac.ir/troca, 2009.Google Scholar
14. Carvalho, JS, Mavrides, E, Shinebourne, EA, Campbell, S, Thilaganathan, B. Improving the effectiveness of routine prenatal screening for major congenital heart defects. Heart 2002; 88: 387–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Wren, C, Richmond, S, Donaldson, L. Temporal variability in birth prevalence of cardiovascular malformations. Heart 2000; 83: 414–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Koppel, RI, Druschel, CM, Carter, T, et al. Effectiveness of pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart disease in asymptomatic newborns. Pediatrics 2003; 111: 451–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Chang, RR, Rodriguez, S, Klitzner, TS. Screening newborns for congenital heart disease with pulse oximetry: survey of pediatric cardiologists. Pediatr Cardiol 2009; 30: 20–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Calzolari1 E, Garani, G, Cocchi, G, et al. Congenital heart defects: 15 years of experience of the Emilia-Romagna Registry (Italy). Eur J Epidemiol 2003; 18: 773–780.Google Scholar
19. Sanders, SP. We know how many – But how? Am Heart J 2004; 147: 398–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar