The Role of Collaboration in Prenatal Congenital Heart Disease Diagnosis: A Comparison of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist and Pediatric Cardiologist Performance.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
Sanitra Anuwutnavin, Matinuch Kuichanuan, Nalat Sompagdee, Supaluck Kanjanauthai, Jarupim Soongswang
{"title":"The Role of Collaboration in Prenatal Congenital Heart Disease Diagnosis: A Comparison of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist and Pediatric Cardiologist Performance.","authors":"Sanitra Anuwutnavin, Matinuch Kuichanuan, Nalat Sompagdee, Supaluck Kanjanauthai, Jarupim Soongswang","doi":"10.1002/jum.16606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared the accuracy of prenatal congenital heart disease (CHD) diagnosed by maternal-fetal medicine specialists (MFMs) and pediatric cardiologists (PCs), using postnatal cardiac findings as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, involved 125 pregnancies with fetal CHD diagnosed by MFMs and evaluated by PCs later. Prenatal CHD diagnoses by either MFM or PC were compared with postnatal diagnoses obtained through echocardiography, cardiac surgery/catheterization, or autopsy. Diagnostic accuracy was classified as (A) correct diagnosis, (B) minor differences not impacting clinical management or outcomes, or (C) major differences affecting prognosis or treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cardiac sonography by MFM achieved diagnostic accuracies of 73.6% (A), 16% (B), and 10.4% (C), while fetal echocardiography by PC resulted in accuracies of 72% (A), 20% (B), and 8% (C). No statistically significant differences were found between MFM and PC in each category (P = .375-.832). The MFMs' accuracy was highest for tetralogy of Fallot (94.4%; 95% CI, 72.7-99.9%) and lowest for right atrial isomerism (71.4%; 95% CI, 29-96.3%) and pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect (57.1%; 95% CI, 18.4-90.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MFMs and PCs demonstrated high and comparable accuracy in prenatal CHD diagnosis. Although PCs tended to outperform MFMs in cases where misdiagnosis could significantly impact neonatal care and outcomes, MFMs can effectively perform primary screening for fetal CHD in all pregnancies. Collaboration with PCs remains essential when fetal CHD is suspected, particularly in complex cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16606","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study compared the accuracy of prenatal congenital heart disease (CHD) diagnosed by maternal-fetal medicine specialists (MFMs) and pediatric cardiologists (PCs), using postnatal cardiac findings as the reference standard.

Methods: This retrospective analysis at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, involved 125 pregnancies with fetal CHD diagnosed by MFMs and evaluated by PCs later. Prenatal CHD diagnoses by either MFM or PC were compared with postnatal diagnoses obtained through echocardiography, cardiac surgery/catheterization, or autopsy. Diagnostic accuracy was classified as (A) correct diagnosis, (B) minor differences not impacting clinical management or outcomes, or (C) major differences affecting prognosis or treatment.

Results: Cardiac sonography by MFM achieved diagnostic accuracies of 73.6% (A), 16% (B), and 10.4% (C), while fetal echocardiography by PC resulted in accuracies of 72% (A), 20% (B), and 8% (C). No statistically significant differences were found between MFM and PC in each category (P = .375-.832). The MFMs' accuracy was highest for tetralogy of Fallot (94.4%; 95% CI, 72.7-99.9%) and lowest for right atrial isomerism (71.4%; 95% CI, 29-96.3%) and pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect (57.1%; 95% CI, 18.4-90.1%).

Conclusions: MFMs and PCs demonstrated high and comparable accuracy in prenatal CHD diagnosis. Although PCs tended to outperform MFMs in cases where misdiagnosis could significantly impact neonatal care and outcomes, MFMs can effectively perform primary screening for fetal CHD in all pregnancies. Collaboration with PCs remains essential when fetal CHD is suspected, particularly in complex cases.

合作在产前先天性心脏病诊断中的作用:母胎医学专家与儿科心脏病专家的工作表现比较。
目的:本研究比较了母胎医学专家(MFMs)和儿科心脏病专家(PCs)诊断产前先天性心脏病(CHD)的准确性,并以产后心脏检查结果作为参考标准:这项回顾性分析在泰国曼谷西里拉吉医院(Siriraj Hospital)进行,共涉及 125 例由母胎医学专家诊断为胎儿先天性心脏病的孕妇,随后由儿科心脏病专家对其进行评估。通过超声心动图、心脏手术/导管插入术或尸检获得的产前超声心动图或PC诊断结果与产后诊断结果进行了比较。诊断准确性分为:(A)诊断正确;(B)差异较小,不影响临床管理或结果;或(C)差异较大,影响预后或治疗:超声心动图的诊断准确率分别为 73.6%(A)、16%(B)和 10.4%(C),而 PC 胎儿超声心动图的诊断准确率分别为 72%(A)、20%(B)和 8%(C)。在每个类别中,超声心动图和 PC 超声心动图的差异均无统计学意义(P = .375-.832)。MFMs对法洛氏四联症的准确率最高(94.4%;95% CI,72.7-99.9%),对右心房异位症(71.4%;95% CI,29-96.3%)和肺动脉闭锁伴室间隔缺损(57.1%;95% CI,18.4-90.1%)的准确率最低:结论:MFMs 和 PCs 在产前诊断先天性心脏病方面表现出很高的准确性,而且两者的准确性不相上下。尽管在误诊可能严重影响新生儿护理和预后的病例中,PC 的表现往往优于 MFM,但 MFM 可以有效地对所有孕妇进行胎儿 CHD 初筛。在怀疑胎儿先天性心脏病时,尤其是在复杂病例中,与PC的合作仍然至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信