Frequently, the cause of chronic pain is undiagnosed, although it affects approximately one in seven U.S. women. Increased awareness of its cost and impact on quality of life should promote increased medical attention to this problem.
OBJECTIVE:
We aimed to examine trends in timing of diagnosis of critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) and factors associated with delayed diagnosis (diagnosis after discharge home following delivery).
METHODS:
We examined a population-based retrospective cohort of CCHD cases among live births identified through the Massachusetts Birth Defects Monitoring Program. Congenital heart defects were considered critical if the infant received corrective surgery, interventional catheterization, palliative care, or died as a result of the defect within 12 months of birth. Timing of initial diagnosis was classified as prenatal, postnatal before discharge home, or delayed. Demographic, perinatal, and mortality information was obtained from the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were used to examine associations with delayed diagnosis.
RESULTS:
Among 460 467 live births to Massachusetts residents between 2004 and 2009, we identified 916 CCHD cases, of which 126 (13.8%) had delayed diagnosis. Rates of prenatal CCHD diagnosis increased from 44.9% in 2004 to 63.8% in 2009, whereas rates of delayed diagnosis decreased from 17.1% to 10.6% over the same time period. Among cases with delayed diagnosis, the most common defects were coarctation, pulmonary valve stenosis, and tetralogy of Fallot. Delayed diagnosis was associated with delivery outside a tertiary hospital (adjusted PR: 3.6 [95% confidence interval: 2.5–5.2]) and isolated CCHD (adjusted PR: 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.1–2.7]).
CONCLUSIONS:
Despite increasing prenatal diagnosis of CCHDs, delayed diagnosis still occurs in over 10% of cases. Understanding factors associated with delayed diagnosis could help to improve prenatal and postnatal screening efforts, including pulse oximetry testing.
Background
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has been associated with birth defects, but the contributions of multiple births and underlying subfertility remain unclear. We evaluated the effects of subfertility and mediation by multiple births on associations between ART and nonchromosomal birth defects.
Methods
We identified a retrospective cohort of Massachusetts live births and stillbirths from 2004–2010 among ART-exposed, ART-unexposed subfertile, and fertile mothers using linked information from fertility clinics, vital records, hospital discharges, and birth defects surveillance. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Mediation analyses were performed to deconstruct the ART-birth defects association into the direct effect of ART, the indirect effect of multiple births, and the effect of ART-multiples interaction.
Results
Of 17,829 ART-exposed births, 355 had a birth defect, compared with 162 of 9431 births to subfertile mothers and 6183 of 445,080 births to fertile mothers. The adjusted prevalence ratio was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–1.6) for ART and 1.3 (1.1–1.5) in subfertile compared with fertile deliveries. We observed elevated rates of several birth defects with ART, including tetralogy of Fallot and hypospadias. Subfertility and multiple births affect these associations, with multiple births explaining 36% of the relative effect of ART on nonchromosomal birth defects.
Conclusion
Although the risk of birth defects with ART is small, a substantial portion of the relative effect is mediated through multiple births, with subfertility contributing an important role. Future research is needed to determine the impact of newer techniques, such as single embryo transfer, on these risks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.