Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease
Abstract
Objectives To define current frequency of prenatal detection of congenital heart disease (CHD), factors affecting prenatal detection, and its influence on postnatal course.Study design We prospectively identified all fetuses and infants < or =6 months of age with major CHD at 3 referral centers in Northern California over 1 year; we obtained prenatal and demographic data, reviewed prenatal ultrasound (US) and postnatal records, and used logistic regression to analyze maternal, fetal, and prenatal-care provider risk factors for prenatal diagnosis.Results Ninety-eight of 309 infants with major CHD had prenatal diagnosis (36% accounting for 27 pregnancy terminations); 185 infant-families participated in the postnatal survey, and although 99% had prenatal US, only 28% were prenatally diagnosed. Anomalous pulmonary venous return (0%), transposition of the great arteries (19%), and left obstructive lesions (23%) had the lowest prenatal detection. Heterotaxy (82%), single ventricle (64%), and HLHS (61%) had the highest. Prenatal diagnosis was higher at university versus community practices (P = .001). Sociodemographics were not associated with prenatal diagnosis. Infants diagnosed prenatally were less frequently ventilated (P < .01) or treated with prostaglandin (P < .05).Conclusions Prenatal detection of major CHD significantly alters postnatal course but remains low despite nearly universal US. CHD type and US practice type are important determinants of prenatal detection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is not always possible to detect CHDs manually through ultrasound.
“Through US, CHDs can be detected manually. However, it is not always possible to detect CHDs in this way [7,8].”
From Deep Learning for Improving the Effectiveness of Routine Prenatal Screening for Major Congenital Heart Diseases (2022) · cites this paper as [8]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 299
- Authors
- Friedberg, M. K., Silverman, N. H., Moon-Grady, A. J., Tong, E., Nourse, J., Sorenson, B., Lee, J., & Hornberger, L. K.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hornberger, Lisa K.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pediatrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 155
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-31.e1
- ISSN
- 0022-3476 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996783790
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 12.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Keywords
- congenital heart disease, prenatal diagnosis, prenatal ultrasound, transposition of the great arteries, heterotaxy syndrome, single ventricle, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, pulmonary venous anomalies, neonatal mechanical ventilation, prostaglandin therapy
- MeSH terms
- Abnormalities, Multiple, Adult, California, Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Hospitals, Community, Hospitals, University, Humans, Infant, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy Trimesters, Prospective Studies, Prostaglandins, Respiration, Artificial, Risk Factors, Transportation of Patients, Prevalence, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Pregnancy, High-Risk
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review