3.9 Article

Missed diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 162, 期 10, 页码 969-974

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.162.10.969

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the rate and the clinical and demographic characteristics of missed diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease (CCHD). Design: Population-based retrospective study of 1989-2004 California statewide death registry data. Setting: California. Participants: The study cohort consisted of 898 infants who died of CCHD at 1 to 364 days of age who either did not undergo surgery or had an unknown surgery status. From all patients who met these initial criteria, we examined (1) whether autopsies were performed and autopsy results were used to establish the cause of death, (2) whether autopsies were performed but the results were not used to establish a cause of death, and (3) whether infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) were potentially receiving comfort care. Main Outcome Measures: Missed and possibly late diagnosis of CCHD. Results: Among 152 infants with a missed CCHD diagnosis, the median age at death was 13.5 days. More than 50% of patients with a missed CCHD diagnosis (n = 78) died at home or in the hospital emergency department. The most common diagnoses were HLHS and coarctation of aorta. There were an average of 10 patients with missed CCHD diagnoses and 20 patients with late diagnoses in California per year. The total annual number of patients with missed or late diagnoses decreased in 1989-1999 and remained unchanged in 2000-2004. Conclusions: Up to 30 infants per year died of a missed or possibly late diagnosis of CCHD in California. Most deaths due to a missed diagnosis were from HLHS and coarctation of the aorta. Because the median age at death was younger than 2 weeks, a careful cardiovascular evaluation for left heart obstructive CHD should be performed during the first postdischarge visit to a pediatrician's office at 3 to 5 days of age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据