Patient factors and geographic barriers influencing excess time between paediatric and adult CHD care

0Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: Over 90% of children with CHD survive into adulthood and require lifelong cardiology care. Delays in care predispose patients to cardiac complications. We sought to determine the time interval to accessing adult CHD care beyond what was recommended by the referring paediatric cardiologist (excess time) and determine risk factors for prolonged excess time. Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study including all patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, age 16-18 years at their last paediatric cardiology visit, with moderate or complex lesions. Excess time between paediatric and adult care was defined as the interval (months) between the final paediatric visit and the first adult visit, minus the recommended interval between these appointments. Patients whose first adult CHD appointment occurred earlier than the recommended interval were assigned an excess time of zero. Results: We included 286 patients (66% male, mean age 17.6 years). Mean excess time was 7.9 ± 15.9 months. Twenty-nine (10%) had an excess time > 24 months. Not having a pacemaker (p = 0.03) and not needing cardiac medications at transfer (p = 0.02) were risk factors for excess time >3 months. Excess time was not influenced by CHD complexity. Discussion: The mean delay to first adult CHD appointment was almost 8 months longer than recommended by referring paediatric cardiologists. Not having a pacemaker and not needing cardiac medication(s) were risk factors for excess time > 3 months. Greater outpatient resources are required to accommodate the growing number of adult CHD survivors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Patzer, J., Yaskina, M., Chappell, A., Patton, D., Alvarez, N., Dicke, F., & Mackie, A. S. (2024). Patient factors and geographic barriers influencing excess time between paediatric and adult CHD care. Cardiology in the Young, 34(6), 1218–1225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951123004250

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