Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Detection of congenital heart disease in mid-Essex

Jogesh Kapadia and RN Mahesh Babu
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (577): 617-618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X515179
Jogesh Kapadia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RN Mahesh Babu
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Congenital heart defects account for 3% of all infant deaths, with 18–25% of affected infants dying in the first year of life. Early (pre-symptomatic) identification helps improve outcome.1 Routine prenatal anomaly scans detect less than half of cardiac defects,2,3 hence detection after birth remains important. Only families with a high risk of congenital heart defects are offered foetal echocardiography.

The UK National Screening Committee's newborn screening policy comprises clinical examination at birth and at 6–8 weeks, with specific cardiac investigations for high-risk children.4

We conducted a 3-year retrospective study in mid-Essex evaluating the detection of congenital heart defects, during postnatal and 6–8 week examinations from September 2004 to August 2007 on 55 infants born in mid-Essex with a confirmed diagnosis of congenital heart defects. Twenty infants identified either antenatally or diagnosed while admitted in the neonatal unit for other indications or detected by active case finding because comorbid conditions were excluded.

Results showed an incidence of 5.5/1000 live-births/year. Postnatal examination detected sixteen (45%) and GPs detected 13 infants (37%) during the 6–8 week check. Six infants with significant congenital heart defects were missed on screening and presented later with symptoms. Cyanotic lesions accounted for just under a quarter of all cases (23.6%). The most common acyanotic lesion was ventricular septal defect (29%). Six infants with significant cardiac lesions were missed on screening and presented at varying ages from 9 days to 7 months of whom four presented with cyanosis. Although all these infants survived, the increased morbidity, use of emergency care resources, and parental stress could be avoided by early detection.

Newborn physical examination is increasingly done in the first 24–48 hours of life by doctors in training and midwives. A congenital heart defect is likely to be missed because signs and symptoms are uncommon in the first few days, infants may look well initially, cyanosis is difficult to detect, and femoral pulses may be felt even in left ventricular obstructive lesions as a result of shunting.

Using echocardiogram as a screening tool would need enormous resources, would yield high false-positive rates, and is neither practical nor cost-effective. Results of a systematic review by Health Technology Assessment showed that clinical examination along with pulse oximetry had the highest detection rate with low false-positivity rates.4 The Pulseox study in the West Midlands is a large multicentre prospective study being conducted to assess diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of routine pulse oximetry to screen congenital heart defects.5

In our study, postnatal examination detected just under half of all infants with congenital heart defects. The 6–8 week infant check by GPs remains an important point of contact for patients as it detected more than a third of infants. The introduction of pulse oximetry as an aide to both these examination checks could increase detection.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Department of Paediatrics, St John's Hospital, Chelmsford for the help and support provided in conducting this study.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2010.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Knowles R,
    2. Griebsch I,
    3. Dezateux C,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a systematic review and cost effective analysis. Health Technol Assess 9(44):1–152, iii–iv.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Sharland G
    (2010) Fetal cardiac screening: why bother? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 95(1):F64–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Khoo NS,
    2. Van Essen P,
    3. Richardson M,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Effectiveness of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects in South Australia: a population analysis 1999–2003. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 48(6):559–563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. UK National Screening Committee
    (2010) NHS Newborn and Infant Physical Examination Screening Programme (NIPE) (NHS Newborn & Infant Physical Examination Programme, London).
  5. ↵
    1. Ewer A
    (2010) Pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart disease in newborn babies (National Institute for Health Research, Southampton) http://www.hta.ac.uk/1624 (accessed 5 Jul 2010).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 60 (577)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 60, Issue 577
August 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Detection of congenital heart disease in mid-Essex
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Detection of congenital heart disease in mid-Essex
Jogesh Kapadia, RN Mahesh Babu
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (577): 617-618. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X515179

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Detection of congenital heart disease in mid-Essex
Jogesh Kapadia, RN Mahesh Babu
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (577): 617-618. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X515179
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Who is your doctor?
  • Jacquet erosive dermatitis in an era of ‘going green’
  • The global primary care crisis
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242