Congenital heart defects (CHDs) are heterogeneous and present with a spectrum of severity, with roughly 25% of patients requiring intervention before age 1. The etiology of disease is unknown in many individuals; however, there is a rapidly expanding understanding of genetic risk factors that may contribute to pathogenesis. Through this work, we sought to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a clinical genetics evaluation and associated genetic testing among infants with critical CHDs. Furthermore, we aimed to both determine the utility of microarray and establish a strong baseline that can be used in future studies of the impact of exome sequencing in this population. We completed a retrospective chart review of 364 infants with CHDs admitted to the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit who underwent a clinical genetics evaluation. A genetic diagnosis was established in 25% of patients: 9% of infants were diagnosed prenatally, while 16% were diagnosed postnatally. Cardiac lesion subtype greatly influenced the diagnostic yield. On physical exam, the presence of dysmorphic features, as assessed by a clinical geneticist, was associated with a sevenfold increased likelihood of reaching a diagnosis. Directed by clinical acumen, diagnostic rates varied by testing modality with rates of 23% for karyotype, 12% for fluorescent in situ hybridization or multiplex-dependent ligation probe analysis, 9% for genome wide microarray, and 17% for targeted gene sequencing. Careful consideration of lesion subtype and physical exam findings clarify populations of infants with CHD that benefit from a genetics evaluation and inform an efficient testing paradigm. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Objective To quantify carrier testing uptake rates for male partners of women found to be a carrier(s) for autosomal recessive conditions and to understand reasons for declining testing (uptake rate). Methods A retrospective chart review of 513 female patients seen at Rutgers‐Robert Wood Johnson Medical School found to be carriers through expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels. The aims of this study were to determine how often their male partner chose testing, reasons for declining and the type of methodology chosen for their screening. Results Male partner uptake rate was 77%. We identified that the most significant barrier to male partner testing is female patients not following up on their own carrier screening results, thus missing the opportunity for partner testing. When male partners were provided options for testing, the most reported reason for declining is the belief it would have no impact on pregnancy management (20%). A carrier couple rate of 8.3% was identified of partners tested. Conclusion Despite a relatively high male testing uptake rate, a quarter of carrier females did not proceed with testing their partner. To ascertain fetal risk, results for both parents is necessary. Pretest counseling should stress need for potential male partner follow‐up testing.

Objectives: To ascertain the rate of unexpected findings on carrier screening (CS) and assess whether implications are disclosed to patients. Methods:We performed a retrospective observational study of subjects who had CS after pre-test counseling from a licensed genetic counselor at a large tertiary care center. We quantified the rate of unexpected finding on CS, defined as manifesting carriers (MCs), genotypes predicting phenotype, and chromosome abnormalities. We determined how often patients were informed of implications. We performed subgroup analyses by type of unexpected finding and calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for carrier testing methodology (genotype) and number of genes tested.Results: A total of 4685 patients had CS over the selected time frame. Of those patients, 412 patients (8.8%) had one unexpected finding and 29 patients (0.6%) had two or more findings. In total, 466 unexpected findings were identified, including 437 MC conditions, 23 genotypes predicting phenotype, and 6 chromosome abnormalities. Patients were informed of the implications for MCs, genotypes predicting phenotype, and chromosome abnormalities in 27.6%, 91.3%, and 100% of cases, respectively. More unexpected findings were detected with sequencing compared to genotyping (OR 2.21 and 95% CI 1.76-2.76) and with ≥200 gene panels compared to <200 gene panels (OR 1.79 and 95% CI 1.47-2.17). Conclusion:This study highlights that nondisclosure of unexpected findings on CS is common and underscores the need for further research to improve post-test counseling and follow-up. Key pointsWhat is already known about this topic? � Previous studies have examined carrier screening (CS) detection rates, but less is known about unexpected findings and whether implications are disclosed to patients. What does this study add?� Unexpected findings are common on CS.