Cited by 23Congenital Heart Disease StudiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital heart defects research

Diagnosis of congenital heart disease in an era of universal prenatal ultrasound screening in southwest Ohio

Sekar, Priya, Heydarian, Haleh C., Cnota, James F., Hornberger, Lisa K., Michelfelder, Erik C.·2015·Cardiology in the Young

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic ultrasound is widespread in obstetric practice, yet many babies with major congenital heart disease remain undiagnosed. Factors affecting prenatal diagnosis of major congenital heart disease are not well understood. This study aims to document prenatal detection rates for major congenital heart disease in the Greater Cincinnati area, and identify factors associated with lack of prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: All living infants diagnosed with major congenital heart disease by 4 months of age at our centre were prospectively identified. Prenatal care data were obtained by parent interview. Neonatal records were reviewed for postnatal data. Obstetricians were contacted for diagnostic ultrasound data. RESULTS: A total of 100 infants met the inclusion criteria. In all, 95 infants were analysed, of whom 94 were offered diagnostic ultrasound. In all, 41 had a prenatal diagnosis of major congenital heart disease. The rate of prenatal detection varied by cardiac lesion, with aortic arch abnormalities, semilunar valve abnormalities, and venous anomalies going undetected in this sample. Among subjects without prenatal detection, the highest proportion consisted of those having Level 1 diagnostic ultrasound only (66%). Prenatal detection was not significantly influenced by maternal race, education level, income, or insurance type. CONCLUSIONS: Despite nearly universal diagnostic ultrasound, detection rates of major congenital heart disease remain low in southwest Ohio. An educational outreach programme including outflow tract sweeps for community-level obstetrical personnel may improve detection rates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1047951113001467

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sekar, P., Heydarian, H. C., Cnota, J. F., Hornberger, L. K., & Michelfelder, E. C.
Affiliations
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Sekar, Priya
Venue
Cardiology in the Young
Published
2013-10-10
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
35-41
ISSN
  • 1047-9511 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-1107
OpenAlex
W2058259755
Cited by
23
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cardiology in the Young (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Congenital heart defects research
Keywords
congenital heart disease, prenatal diagnosis, prenatal ultrasound screening, ultrasonography, missed diagnosis, venous anomalies, obstetric training
MeSH terms
Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Ohio, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Prenatal Diagnosis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

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