Cited by 303Congenital Heart Disease StudiesCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsCongenital heart defects research

Presentation of congenital heart disease in infancy: implications for routine examination

Open access
Wren, Christopher, Richmond, Sam, Donaldson, Liam·1999·Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Abstract

AIM To investigate the performance of routine neonatal and 6 week examinations for detecting congenital heart disease. METHODS A retrospective review of findings on clinical examination was conducted of a cohort of live born infants with congenital heart disease in one health region in 1987–94 RESULTS Of 1590 babies with congenital heart disease, 523 (33%) presented before neonatal examination because of symptoms or non-cardiac abnormalities. 1061 underwent routine neonatal examination which was abnormal in 476 (45%), but only 170 were referred directly for diagnosis. Of 876 discharged with no diagnosis, 306 presented or died undiagnosed before 6 weeks. At 6 weeks 252 of 569 babies underwent a second routine examination which was abnormal in 164 (65%). CONCLUSIONS Routine neonatal examination fails to detect more than half of babies with heart disease; examination at 6 weeks misses one third. A normal examination does not exclude heart disease. Babies with murmurs at neonatal or 6 week examinations should be referred for early paediatric cardiological evaluation which will result either in a definitive diagnosis of congenital heart disease or in authoritative reassurance of normal cardiac anatomy and function. Key points • More than half of babies with undiagnosed congenital heart disease which comes to light in infancy are missed by routine neonatal examination and more than one third by the 6 week examination • Parents, community midwives, health visitors, general practitioners and paediatricians should recognise that a normal neonatal examination does not guarantee that the baby is normal and certainly does not exclude life threatening cardiovascular malformation • Follow up of babies with murmurs without arranging for an early definitive (echocardiographic) diagnosis is of little value and can be risky • Babies with murmurs at neonatal or 6 week examinations should be referred for early paediatric cardiological evaluation. This will result either in a definitive diagnosis of congenital heart disease or in authoritative reassurance of normal cardiac anatomy and function • Babies with Down’s syndrome have a high prevalence of congenital heart disease and all should be referred for early echocardiographic examination.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/fn.80.1.f49

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Northern Regional Survey Screening Group. Fetal abnormality, an audit of its recognition and management. Arch Dis Child 1992;67:F770-4.
  2. Abu-Harb M, Wyllie J, Hey E, Richmond S, Wren C. Pres- entation of obstructive left heart malformation in infancy. Arch Dis Child 1994;76:F179-83.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wren, C., Richmond, S., & Donaldson, L.
Affiliations
Freeman Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Wren, Christopher
Venue
Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-01-01
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
F49-F53
ISSN
  • 1359-2998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2052
OpenAlex
W2125867097
Cited by
303
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 19
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Congenital heart defects research
Keywords
congenital heart disease, neonatal assessment, infant examination, missed diagnosis, heart murmurs, Down syndrome, echocardiography, early diagnosis
MeSH terms
Down Syndrome, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Neonatal Screening

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