RESUMEN
Recent studies suggest that suboptimal cardiac imaging on routine obstetric anatomy ultrasound (OB-scan) is not associated with a higher risk for congenital heart disease (CHD) and, therefore, should not be an indication for fetal echocardiography (F-echo). We aim to determine the incidence of CHD in patients referred for suboptimal imaging in a large catchment area, including regions that are geographically distant from a tertiary care center. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients referred to Seattle Children's Hospital (SCH) and SCH Regional Cardiology sites (SCH-RC) from 2011 to 2021 for F-echo with the indication of suboptimal cardiac imaging by OB-scan. Of 454 patients referred for suboptimal imaging, 21 (5%) of patients were diagnosed with CHD confirmed on postnatal echo. 10 patients (2%) required intervention by age one. Mean GA at F-echo was significantly later for suboptimal imaging compared to all other referral indications (27.5 ± 3.9 vs 25.2 ± 5.2 weeks, p < 0.01). Mean GA at F-echo was also significantly later at SCH-RC compared to SCH (29.2 ± 4.6 vs 24.2 ± 2.9 weeks; p < 0.01). In our experience, CHD in patients referred for suboptimal imaging is higher (5%) than previously described, suggesting that routine referral for is warranted. Furthermore, while suboptimal imaging was associated with a delayed F-echo compared to other indications, this delay was most striking for those seen at regional sites. This demonstrates a potential disparity for these patients and highlights opportunities for targeted education in cardiac assessment for primary providers in these regions.
RESUMEN
AIM: Multidisciplinary foetal centres have recently emerged in partnership with children's hospitals throughout the United States. The aim of this investigation was to describe the patient experience of pregnant women who were referred to our foetal centres for the evaluation of foetal congenital anomalies. METHODS: A qualitative interview study of women referred to our foetal centres was conducted using semi-structured telephone interviews. The data were coded and analysed using thematic networks analysis. RESULTS: Six themes were identified (i) foetal centre evaluations had a far-reaching impact on participants' lives, (ii) participants appreciated both expertise and support from providers, (iii) participants recognised the need to cope with uncertainty, (iv) participants sought additional support from multiple arenas, (v) participants specifically looked to the Internet for both information and support and (vi) participants had pre-established views about pregnancy termination. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary foetal centres can provide a unified source of clinical expertise to women who are carrying a foetus with a suspected or identified congenital anomaly. Despite this diagnostic acumen, uncertainty is pervasive and patients seek support and additional information from a variety of other sources. This investigation is an important initial step in the evaluation of this emerging model of care.