Search

Objective: Fetuses with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at increased risk of pregnancy loss compared with the general population. We aimed to assess the incidence, timing and risk factors of pregnancy loss in cases with major fetal CHD, overall and according to cardiac diagnosis. Methods: This was a retrospective, population‐level cohort study of fetuses and infants diagnosed with major CHD between 1997 and 2018 identified by the Utah Birth Defect Network (UBDN), excluding cases with termination of pregnancy and minor cardiovascular diagnoses (e.g. isolated aortic/pulmonary pathology and isolated septal defects). The incidence and timing of pregnancy loss were recorded, overall and according to CHD diagnosis, with further stratification based on presence of isolated CHD vs additional fetal diagnosis (genetic diagnosis and/or extracardiac malformation). Adjusted risk of pregnancy loss was calculated and risk factors were assessed using multivariable models for the overall cohort and prenatal diagnosis subgroup. Results: Of 9351 UBDN cases with a cardiovascular code, 3251 cases with major CHD were identified, resulting in a study cohort of 3120 following exclusion of cases with pregnancy termination (n = 131). There were 2956 (94.7%) live births and 164 (5.3%) cases of pregnancy loss, which occurred at a median gestational age of 27.3 weeks. Of study cases, 1848 (59.2%) had isolated CHD and 1272 (40.8%) had an additional fetal diagnosis, including 736 (57.9%) with a genetic diagnosis and 536 (42.1%) with an extracardiac malformation. The observed incidence of pregnancy loss was highest in the presence of mitral stenosis (< 13.5%), hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) (10.7%), double‐outlet right ventricle with normally related great vessels or not otherwise specified (10.5%) and Ebstein's anomaly (9.9%). The adjusted risk of pregnancy loss was 5.3% (95% CI, 3.7–7.6%) in the overall CHD population and 1.4% (95% CI, 0.9–2.3%) in cases with isolated CHD (adjusted risk ratio, 9.0 (95% CI, 6.0–13.0) and 2.0 (95% CI, 1.0–6.0), respectively, based on the general population risk of 0.6%). On multivariable analysis, variables associated with pregnancy loss in the overall CHD population included female fetal sex (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1–2.3)), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0–2.5)), hydrops (aOR, 6.7 (95% CI, 4.3–10.5)) and additional fetal diagnosis (aOR, 6.3 (95% CI, 4.1–10)). On multivariable analysis of the prenatal diagnosis subgroup, years of maternal education (aOR, 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0–1.4)), presence of an additional fetal diagnosis (aOR, 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4–5.6)), atrioventricular valve regurgitation ≥ moderate (aOR, 3.6 (95% CI, 1.3–8.8)) and ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 3.8 (95% CI, 1.2–11.1)) were associated with pregnancy loss. Diagnostic groups associated with pregnancy loss were HLHS and variants (aOR, 3.0 (95% CI, 1.7–5.3)), other single ventricles (aOR, 2.4 (95% CI, 1.1–4.9)) and other (aOR, 0.1 (95% CI, 0–0.97)). Time‐to‐pregnancy‐loss analysis demonstrated a steeper survival curve for cases with an additional fetal diagnosis, indicating a higher rate of pregnancy loss compared to cases with isolated CHD (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The risk of pregnancy loss is higher in cases with major fetal CHD compared with the general population and varies according to CHD type and presence of additional fetal diagnoses. Improved understanding of the incidence, risk factors and timing of pregnancy loss in CHD cases should inform patient counseling, antenatal surveillance and delivery planning. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. A video abstract of this article is available online here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known regarding the effects of a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) on the cost of antenatal and delivery care. We sought to compare the maternal costs of care in pregnancies where the fetus or child was diagnosed prenatally vs. postnatally. Costs of maternal care were determined for pregnancies in which the fetus or child was diagnosed with CHD between 1997 and 2012 in the state of Utah. Cases of CHD were identified via a statewide birth defect surveillance program which included data on the timing of diagnosis, maternal demographic and clinical data, and linked to statewide inpatient maternal hospital discharge records. Antenatal testing costs were determined using Medicaid fee estimates and total facility costs were determined for all hospitalizations including delivery. The association of timing of diagnosis of CHD with costs was analyzed using univariable and multivariable models. Of 2128 pregnancies included in the study, 36% had a fetus prenatally diagnosed with CHD. The prenatal diagnosis group was more likely to have a termination or stillbirth and were younger at delivery (gestational age 37.3 vs 38.0 weeks, p <.001). Labor induction and cesarean delivery rates were similar between groups. Antenatal testing and delivery hospitalization costs were higher in the prenatal diagnosis group: $5819 vs $4041 (p <.001) and $10,509 vs $7802 (p <.001), respectively. Patients in the prenatal diagnosis group had longer lengths of hospital stays (3.5 vs 2.4 d, p >.001). After controlling for significant differences between the groups, including lesion severity, the prenatal diagnosis remained directly associated with antenatal testing costs (+$1472), maternal hospitalization costs (+$2713), and maternal hospital length of stay (+1.0 d). A prenatal diagnosis of fetal CHD was associated with increased prenatal costs, hospitalization costs, and hospital length of stay for affected pregnant patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare interpretability of 2 intrapartum abdominal fetal heart rate-monitoring strategies. We hypothesized that an external fetal electrocardiography monitoring system, a newer technology using wireless abdominal pads, would generate more interpretable fetal heart rate data compared with standard external Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring (standard external monitoring).Study Design: We conducted a randomized controlled trial at 4 Utah hospitals. Patients were enrolled at labor admission and randomized in blocks based on body mass index to fetal electrocardiography or standard external monitoring. Two reviewers, blinded to study allocation, reviewed each fetal heart rate tracing. The primary outcome was the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing. An interpretable minute was defined as >25% fetal heart rate data present and no more than 25% continuous missing fetal heart rate data or artifact present. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing obtained while on study device only, the number of device adjustments required intrapartum, clinical outcomes, and patient/provider device satisfaction. We determined that 100 patients per arm (200 total) would be needed to detect a 5% difference in interpretability with 95% power.Results: A total of 218 women were randomized, 108 to fetal electrocardiography and 110 to standard external monitoring. Device setup failure occurred more often in the fetal electrocardiography group (7.5% [8 of 107] vs 0% [0 of 109] for standard external monitoring). There were no differences in the percentage of interpretable tracing between the 2 groups. However, fetal electrocardiography produced more interpretable fetal heart rate tracing in subjects with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. When considering the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing while on study device only, fetal electrocardiography outperformed standard external monitoring for all subjects, regardless of maternal body mass index. Maternal demographics and clinical outcomes were similar between arms. In the fetal electrocardiography group, more device changes occurred compared with standard external monitoring (51% vs 39%), but there were fewer nursing device adjustments (2.9 vs 6.2 mean adjustments intrapartum, P < .01). There were no differences in physician device satisfaction scores between groups, but fetal electrocardiography generated higher patient satisfaction scores.Conclusion: Fetal electrocardiography performed similarly to standard external monitoring when considering percentage of interpretable tracing generated in labor. Furthermore, patients reported overall greater satisfaction with fetal electrocardiography in labor. Fetal electrocardiography may be particularly useful in patients with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]