ArticleCardiology and therapy2024
The Utility of Screening Fetal Echocardiograms Following Normal Level II Ultrasounds in Fetuses with Maternal Congenital Heart Disease.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selective Fetal Echocardiogram Referral Program for Pregnancies Affected by Pregestational Diabetes.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Sonographer Grasp and Pincher Strength Before and After Fetal Echocardiograms.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Screening for Structural Heart Defects: A Single-Center Retrospective Cost Analysis for Fetal Echocardiography in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Utility of Screening Fetal Echocardiograms Following Normal Level II Ultrasounds in Fetuses with Siblings with Congenital Heart Disease.Cardiology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFetal echocardiograms (F-echo) are recommended in all pregnancies when maternal congenital heart disease (CHD) is present, even if there was a prior level II ultrasound (LII-US) that was normal. The goal of this study was to evaluate if any diagnosis of a critical CHD was missed in a fetus with maternal CHD who had a normal LII-US.
methodsA retrospective chart review of all F-echoes where the indication was maternal CHD between 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2022 was performed. Fetuses were included if they had a LII-US that was read as normal and had an F-echo. Critical CHD was defined as CHD requiring catheterization or surgical intervention < 1 month of age.
resultsA total of 296 F-echoes on fetuses with maternal CHD were evaluated, of which 175 met inclusion criteria. LII-US was performed at 19.8 ± 2.9 weeks gestational age and F-echo was performed at 24.2 ± 2.8 weeks gestational age. No patient with a normal LII-US had a diagnosis of a critical CHD by F-echo (negative predictive value = 100%). Evaluating those patients that had a negative LII-US, ten patients were diagnosed with non-critical CHD postnatally (negative predictive value = 94.3%). F-echo correctly diagnosed two of the ten missed LII-US CHD.
conclusionsCritical CHD was not missed with a normal LII-US in this at risk population. F-echo also missed the majority of CHD when a LII-US was read as normal. A cost-benefit analysis of screening F-echo in fetuses with maternal CHD should be conducted if a normal LII-US has been performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.