4.6 Review

Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011912.pub2

关键词

-

资金

  1. IRYCIS, Spain
  2. Instituto Ramon y Cajal de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Madrid
  3. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
  4. CIBERESP, Spain
  5. CIBER Epidemiology and Public Heath
  6. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA
  7. Federal funds from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA [HHSN275201600005C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Health outcomes are improved when newborn babies with critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) are detected before acute cardiovascular collapse. The main screening tests used to identify these babies include prenatal ultrasonography and postnatal clinical examination; however, even though both of these methods are available, a significant proportion of babies are still missed. Routine pulse oximetry has been reported as an additional screening test that can potentially improve detection of CCHD. Objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry as a screening method for detection of CCHD in asymptomatic newborn infants To assess potential sources of heterogeneity, including: characteristics of the population: inclusion or exclusion of antenatally detected congenital heart defects; timing of testing: < 24 hours versus > 24 hours after birth; site of testing: right hand and foot (pre-ductal and post-ductal) versus foot only (post-ductal); oxygen saturation: functional versus fractional; study design: retrospective versus prospective design, consecutive versus non-consecutive series; and risk of bias for the flow and timing domain of QUADAS-2. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library and the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), up to March 2017. We searched the reference lists of all included articles and relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies not found through the electronic search. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria We selected studies that met predefined criteria for design, population, tests, and outcomes. We included cross-sectional and cohort studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximetry screening for diagnosis of CCHD in term and late preterm asymptomatic newborn infants. We considered all protocols of pulse oximetry screening (eg, different saturation thresholds to define abnormality, post-ductal only or pre-ductal and post-ductal measurements, test timing less than or greater than 24 hours). Reference standards were diagnostic echocardiography (echocardiogram) and clinical follow-up, including postmortem findings, mortality, and congenital anomaly databases. Data collection and analysis We extracted accuracy data for the threshold used in primary studies. We explored between-study variability and correlation between indices visually through use of forest and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate random-effects pooled sensitivity and specificity values. We investigated sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Main results Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 457,202 participants). Nineteen studies provided data for the primary analysis (oxygen saturation threshold < 95% or < 95%; N = 436,758 participants). The overall sensitivity of pulse oximetry for detection of CCHD was 76.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.5 to 82.0) (low certainty of the evidence). Specificity was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 99.9), with a false-positive rate of 0.14% (95% CI 0.07 to 0.22) (high certainty of the evidence). Summary positive and negative likelihood ratios were 535.6 (95% CI 280.3 to 1023.4) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.31), respectively. These results showed that out of 10,000 apparently healthy late preterm or full-term newborn infants, six will have CCHD (median prevalence in our review). Screening by pulse oximetry will detect five of these infants as having CCHD and will miss one case. In addition, screening by pulse oximetry will falsely identify another 14 infants out of the 10,000 as having suspected CCHD when they do not have it. The false-positive rate for detection of CCHD was lower when newborn pulse oximetry was performed longer than 24 hours after birth than when it was performed within 24 hours (0.06%, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13, vs 0.42%, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89; P = 0.027). Forest and ROC plots showed greater variability in estimated sensitivity than specificity across studies. We explored heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses and meta-regression of inclusion or exclusion of antenatally detected congenital heart defects, timing of testing, and risk of bias for the flow and timing domain of QUADAS-2, and we did not find an explanation for the heterogeneity in sensitivity. Authors' conclusions Pulse oximetry is a highly specific and moderately sensitive test for detection of CCHD with very low false-positive rates. Current evidence supports the introduction of routine screening for CCHD in asymptomatic newborns before discharge from the well-baby nursery.

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

4.6
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