4.0 Article

Screening of adults with congenital cardiac disease lost for follow-up

Journal

CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages 601-608

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1047951107001436

Keywords

grown-up congenital heart disease; echocardiography; auscultation; natriuretic peptides

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: A problem facing doctors treating adults with congenitally malformed hearts is that a significant number of these patients are lost for follow-up. The purpose of our study is to describe the medical history and clinical findings in a group of such adults that was lost for follow-up. Design, settings and patients: The Danish press ran a front-page story about adults with congenitally malformed hearts who were lost for follow-up. These patients were strongly advised to contact a center for congenital cardiac disease, and we examined all responding patients within four-weeks. Interventions: We carried out a structured interview, a clinical examination, echocardiography, and measured levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide. Results: The number of responders was 147. Based on the diagnosis and the findings, further follow-up was scheduled for 52 (35.4%), either because of significant residual lesions, found in 32, or the risk of late complications, judged to be present in 20. Symptoms were present in 36.5% of patients scheduled for follow-up. The presence of a heart murmur was highly predictive of the need for further follow-up but the sensitivity was too low to recommend the use of auscultation as a screening test. Conclusion: A large proportion of adults with congenitally malformed hearts who are lost for follow-up require regular assessment according to a modern standard. Symptoms, signs, and measurement of natriuretic peptide cannot replace full cardiological assessment. It is a challenge for centres treating adults with congenital heart disease to find the lost group of patient with significant cardiac malformations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available