4.7 Review

The incidence of congenital heart disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1890-1900

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01886-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 25847] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to determine the reasons for the variability of the incidence of congenital heart disease (CHD), estimate its true value and provide data about the incidence of specific major forms of CHID. The incidence of CHD in different studies varies from about 4/1,000 to 5011,000 live births. The relative frequency of different major forms of CHD also differs greatly from study to study. In addition, another 20/1,000 live births have bicuspid aortic valves, isolated anomalous lobar pulmonary veins or a silent patent ductus arteriosus. The incidences reported in 62 studies published after 1955 were examined. Attention was paid to the ways in which the studies were conducted, with special reference to the increased use of echocardiography in the neonatal nursery. The total incidence of CHD was related to the relative frequency of ventricular septal defects (VSDs), the most common type of CHID. The incidences of individual major forms of CHD were determined from 44 studies. The incidence of CHD depends primarily on the number of small VSDs included in the series, and this number in turn depends upon how early the diagnosis is made. If major forms of CHD are stratified into trivial, moderate and severe categories, the variation in incidence depends mainly on the number of trivial lesions included. The incidence of moderate and severe forms of CHD is about 6/1,000 live births (19/1,000 live births if the potentially serious bicuspid aortic valve is included), and of all forms increases to 75/1,000 live births if tiny muscular VSDs present at birth and other trivial lesions are included. Given the causes of variation, there is no evidence for differences in incidence in different countries or times.

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

4.7
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