Prediction of outcome of fetal congenital heart disease using a cardiovascular profile score

101Citations
Citations of this article
78Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: Congestive heart failure in fetuses with congenital heart defects (CHD) is associated with high perinatal mortality. The clinical condition can be characterized by five ultrasound markers that comprise the 10-point cardiovascular profile (CVP) score. Our aim was to assess the value of the CVP score in evaluating the condition and in maintaining surveillance of fetuses with CHD. Methods: We evaluated retrospectively 131 singleton pregnancies with a diagnosis of fetal CHD, which had been assessed by serial echocardiographic examinations, during which the CVP score was obtained. Fetal and neonatal outcomes, including perinatal mortality and Apgar scores, were assessed. Results: Fetuses with a final CVP score ≤7 were statistically significantly more likely to suffer mortality than were fetuses with a final CVP score ≥8 (87.5% vs. 15.2% mortality; P < 0.0001, chi square = 24.5). Significance was maintained after controlling for birth weight, lag time between the final examination and delivery and the dichotomized 5-min Apgar score (odds ratio, 22.3; P = 0.024). For low Apgar score and mortality, the CVP score had low sensitivity (0.25 and 0.27, respectively) but high specificity (0.98 and 0.99, respectively). The presence of hydrops and severe cardiomegaly were statistically significantly associated with mortality (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Fetuses with CHD and a CVP score below 8 are at risk of perinatal death. The CVP score may be used to assess the severity of fetal CHD and to plan perinatal management. Copyright © 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wieczorek, A., Hernandez-Robles, J., Ewing, L., Leshko, J., Luther, S., & Huhta, J. (2008). Prediction of outcome of fetal congenital heart disease using a cardiovascular profile score. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 31(3), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5177

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free