Background: The international nomenclature of Congenital Heart Diseases (CHD) remains challenging. Classifications have been proposed such as the International Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) and the Anatomic and Clinical Classification (ACC-CHD).Objective: To Evaluate the clinical application of these two classifications on cardiac antenatal diagnosis.
Methods:We retrospectively included fetal echocardiograms over 6 years. Reports were independently coded with 1 single code by 3 pediatric cardiologists with increasing experience [junior (J), senior I (SI) and II (SII)]. Discordances between doctors were compared to a gold standard code, with focus on coding difficulties and effects of professional experience using IPCCC and ACC-CHD.Results: 180 scans were included. Using either "IPCCC short list 2012" or "ACC-CHD", coding with 1 item was difficult for SI and SII in 15% of cases. IPCCC was too exhaustive for its simple use leading to discordance. ACC-CHD was also difficult to use (learning curve, use of 1 code, complex CHD). Coding concordance using ACC-CHD main categories was higher for seniors compared to junior (J-SI, p= 0.04; J-SII, p=0.02), no differences between seniors. Compared to the gold standard for ACC-CHD (main, sub) categories, junior concordance was lower (73.3%, 71.1%) than SI (90%, 83.3%, p<0.005) and SII (88.3%, 87.2%, p<0.0001). Senior concordance was stronger (75%) with ACC-CHD sub categories compared to IPCCC (65%, p=0.028).Conclusion: IPCCC and ACC-CHD remain difficult to use in clinical practice. Many functional abnormalities are not listed in the ACC-CHD but could be updated with a few more sub-groups to increase ease of use in this particular setting.