4.5 Article

Loss to specialist follow-up in congenital heart disease; out of sight, out of mind

Journal

HEART
Volume 99, Issue 7, Pages 485-490

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302831

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's' Charity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate the scale and clinical importance of loss to follow-up of past patients with serious congenital heart disease, using a common malformation as an example. To better understand the antecedents of loss to specialist follow-up and patients' attitudes to returning. Design Cohort study using NHS number functionality. Content and thematic analysis of telephone interviews of subset contacted after loss to follow-up. Patients, intervention and setting Longitudinal follow-up of complete consecutive list of all 1085 UK patients with repair of tetralogy of Fallot from single institution 1964-2009. Main outcome measures Survival, freedom from late pulmonary valve replacement, loss to specialist follow-up, shortfall in late surgical revisions related to loss to follow-up. Patients' narrative about loss to follow-up. Results 216 (24%) of patients known to be currently alive appear not to be registered with specialist clinics; some are seen in general cardiology clinics. Their median age is 32 years and median duration of loss to follow-up is 22 years; most had been lost before Adult Congenital services had been consolidated in their present form. 48% of the late deaths to date have occurred in patients not under specialist follow-up. None of those lost to specialist follow-up has had secondary pulmonary valve replacement while 188 patients under specialist care have. Patients lost to specialist follow-up who were contacted by telephone had no knowledge of its availability. Conclusions Loss to specialist follow-up, typically originating many years ago, impacts patient management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available