Evaluating the Modified American Academy of Pediatrics Screening Algorithm for Critical Congenital Heart Disease

Abstract

Objective

In 2018, an expert panel recommended two key modifications to the most used algorithm for screening neonates for critical congenital heart disease (CCHD). Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of the modified algorithm compared with those of the original algorithm in a real-world setting.

Study Design

We compared the performance characteristics of an original CCHD algorithm used to screen term neonates at a large hospital system between October 26, 2018, and October 15, 2020, and the recommended modified algorithm used between October 15, 2020, and June 30, 2022. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, proportion of false positives with non-CCHD illness, and error rates of test administration and interpretation for each algorithm.

Results

Sensitivity was not significantly different between the modified algorithm compared with the original algorithm (40.00 vs. 12.50%, p ≥0.99), but specificity was lower (and hence false positive rate was higher) in the modified algorithm (99.91 vs. 99.98%, p < 0.001). Despite a higher false positive rate in the modified algorithm, the proportion of false positives with significant non-CCHD illness was similar (36.47 vs. 28.57%, p ≥0.99), a finding that translated to an increase in the number of cases of significant non-CCHD illness detected (11 cases out of 32,178 screens vs. 2 cases out of 32,984 screens). Error rates of test administration and interpretation were similar between the two algorithms.

Conclusion

In this limited study, the modified algorithm for CCHD screening using pulse oximetry had a higher false positive rate than that of the original American Academy of Pediatrics algorithm. However, this higher rate led to an increased overall number of cases detected of significant non-CCHD illness.

Key Points

• Experts recommend two changes to the American Academy of Pediatrics-endorsed CCHD screen.

• This study evaluates the new algorithm for screening.

• The new algorithm detects at least as many cases as the original.

• There was no significant difference in test sensitivity for CCHD.

• The new algorithm has a statistically higher false positive rate.

Keywords

critical congenital heart disease - pulse oximetry - screening algorithm

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 25. Januar 2024

Angenommen: 17. September 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
17. September 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. Oktober 2024

• References

• 1 Mahle WT, Martin GR, Beekman III RH, Morrow WR. Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Executive Committee. Endorsement of Health and Human Services recommendation for pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2012; 129 (01) 190-192
• 2 Peterson C, Grosse SD, Glidewell J. et al. A public health economic assessment of hospitals' cost to screen newborns for critical congenital heart disease. Public Health Rep 2014; 129 (01) 86-93
• 3 Narayen IC, Te Pas AB, Blom NA, van den Akker-van Marle ME. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects following homebirth and early discharge. Eur J Pediatr 2019; 178 (01) 97-103
• 4 Abouk R, Grosse SD, Ailes EC, Oster ME. Association of US State Implementation of newborn screening policies for critical congenital heart disease with early infant cardiac deaths. JAMA 2017; 318 (21) 2111-2118
• 5 Singh A, Rasiah SV, Ewer AK. The impact of routine predischarge pulse oximetry screening in a regional neonatal unit. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2014; 99 (04) F297-F302
• 6 Plana MN, Zamora J, Suresh G, Fernandez-Pineda L, Thangaratinam S, Ewer AK. Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 3 (03) CD011912
• 7 Kemper AR, Mahle WT, Martin GR. et al. Strategies for implementing screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2011; 128 (05) e1259-e1267
• 8 Martin GR, Ewer AK, Gaviglio A. et al. Updated strategies for pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2020; 146 (01) e20191650
• 9 Diller CL, Kelleman MS, Kupke KG, Quary SC, Kochilas LK, Oster ME. A modified algorithm for critical congenital heart disease screening using pulse oximetry. Pediatrics 2018; 141 (05) e20174065
• 10 Garg LF, Van Naarden Braun K, Knapp MM. et al. Results from the New Jersey statewide critical congenital heart defects screening program. Pediatrics 2013; 132 (02) e314-e323
• 11 Schwartz BN, Hom LA, Von Kohorn I. et al. Newborn pulse oximetry screening at a community hospital: an 8-year experience. Pediatrics 2021; 148 (03) e2020049847
• 12 Reller MD, Strickland MJ, Riehle-Colarusso T, Mahle WT, Correa A. Prevalence of congenital heart defects in metropolitan Atlanta, 1998-2005. J Pediatr 2008; 153 (06) 807-813
• 13 Ailes EC, Gilboa SM, Honein MA, Oster ME. Estimated number of infants detected and missed by critical congenital heart defect screening. Pediatrics 2015; 135 (06) 1000-1008
• 14 Miller R, Martens T, Jodhka U, Tran J, Lion R, Bock MJ. Effects of universal critical CHD screening of neonates at a mid-sized California congenital cardiac surgery centre. Cardiol Young 2022; 32 (02) 236-243
• 15 Oster ME, Colarusso T, Glidewell J. Screening for critical congenital heart disease: a matter of sensitivity. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34 (01) 203-204
• 16 Huang Y, Zhong S, Zhang X. et al. Large scale application of pulse oximeter and auscultation in screening of neonatal congenital heart disease. BMC Pediatr 2022; 22 (01) 483
• 17 Rasmussen M, Suttner D, Poeltler D, Katheria AC. Use of Pulse Oximetry Pulsatility Index screening for critical congenital heart disease. Am J Perinatol 2022; 41: e545-e549
• 18 Thangaratinam S, Brown K, Zamora J, Khan KS, Ewer AK. Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects in asymptomatic newborn babies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012; 379 (9835) 2459-2464
• 19 Majani N, Chillo P, Slieker MG. et al. Newborn screening for critical congenital heart disease in a low-resource setting; research protocol and preliminary results of the Tanzania Pulse Oximetry Study. Glob Heart 2022; 17 (01) 32
• 20 Gómez-Gutiérrez R, Galindo-Hayashi JM, Cantú-Reyna C, Vazquez-Cantu DL, Britton-Robles C, Cruz-Camino H. Critical CHD screening programme: a 3-year multicentre experience in Mexico. Cardiol Young 2022; 1-7
• 21 Singh Y, Chen SE. Impact of pulse oximetry screening to detect congenital heart defects: 5 years' experience in a UK regional neonatal unit. Eur J Pediatr 2022; 181 (02) 813-821
• 22 Henderson A, Aguirre D, Singh A, Ewer AK. Temporal trends in routine predischarge pulse oximetry screening: 6 years' experience in a UK regional neonatal unit. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2022; 107 (03) 256-261