Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Cardiology 2/2020

01-02-2020 | Aortic Coarctation | Original Article

The Benefits and Bias in Neurodevelopmental Evaluation for Children with Congenital Heart Disease

Authors: Kristi L. Glotzbach, John J. Ward, Jennifer Marietta, Aaron W. Eckhauser, Sarah Winter, Michael D. Puchalski, Thomas A. Miller

Published in: Pediatric Cardiology | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Neurodevelopmental (ND) impairment is common in children with congenital heart disease (CHD). While routine ND surveillance and evaluation of high-risk patients has become the standard-of-care, capture rate, barriers to referral, and potential patient benefits remain incompletely understood. Electronic data warehouse records from a single center were reviewed to identify all eligible and evaluated patients between July 2015 and December 2017 based on current guidelines for ND screening in CHD. Diagnoses, referring provider, and payor were considered. Potential benefit of the evaluation was defined as receipt of new diagnosis, referral for additional evaluation, or referral for a new service. Contingencies were assessed with Fisher’s exact test. In this retrospective, cohort study, of 3434 children identified as eligible for ND evaluation, 135 were evaluated (4%). Appropriate evaluation was affected by diagnostic bias against coarctation of the aorta (CoArc) and favoring hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) (1.8 vs. 11.9%, p<0.01). Referrals were disproportionally made by a select group of cardiologists, and the rate of ND appointment non-compliance was higher in self-pay compared to insured patients (78% vs 27%, p<0.01). Potential benefit rate was 70–80% amongst individuals with the three most common diagnoses requiring neonatal surgery (CoArc, transposition of the great arteries, and HLHS). Appropriate ND evaluation in CHD is impacted by diagnosis, provider, and insurance status. Potential benefit of ND evaluation is high regardless of diagnosis. Strategies to improve access to ND evaluations and provider understanding of the at-risk population will likely improve longitudinal ND surveillance and clinical benefit.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hoffman JI, Kaplan S (2002) The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:1890–1900CrossRef Hoffman JI, Kaplan S (2002) The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:1890–1900CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mahle WT, Wernovsky G (2001) Long-term developmental outcome of children with complex congenital heart disease. Clin Perinatol 28:235–247CrossRef Mahle WT, Wernovsky G (2001) Long-term developmental outcome of children with complex congenital heart disease. Clin Perinatol 28:235–247CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mulkey SB et al (2016) School-age test proficiency and special education after congenital heart disease surgery in infancy. J Pediatr 178:47–54CrossRef Mulkey SB et al (2016) School-age test proficiency and special education after congenital heart disease surgery in infancy. J Pediatr 178:47–54CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Patra K, Greene MM, Perez B, Silvestri JM (2014) Neonatal high-risk follow-up clinics: how to improve attendance in very low birthweight infants. E-J Neonatol Res 4(1):3–13 Patra K, Greene MM, Perez B, Silvestri JM (2014) Neonatal high-risk follow-up clinics: how to improve attendance in very low birthweight infants. E-J Neonatol Res 4(1):3–13
Metadata
Title
The Benefits and Bias in Neurodevelopmental Evaluation for Children with Congenital Heart Disease
Authors
Kristi L. Glotzbach
John J. Ward
Jennifer Marietta
Aaron W. Eckhauser
Sarah Winter
Michael D. Puchalski
Thomas A. Miller
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Pediatric Cardiology / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0172-0643
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1971
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-019-02260-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Pediatric Cardiology 2/2020 Go to the issue