ArticleBirth defects research2026
Health Care Utilization in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease: Population-Based Findings.
Article in Birth defects research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPopulation-based data on healthcare utilization in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are limited. We examined utilization patterns in a multi-site, population-based U.S. cohort of adults with CHD.
methodsThis retrospective cohort linked health and administrative records from five regions (Colorado, North Carolina, Utah, metropolitan Atlanta, and New York). Adults aged 19-64 years with at least one CHD-related ICD-9-CM code recorded during 2011-2013 were included. We evaluated inpatient, emergency department (ED), outpatient, and cardiology outpatient encounters, as well as cardiac diagnostic/imaging, therapeutic/interventional, and vascular procedures. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models compared utilization by CHD severity (severe vs. non-severe), adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidity, and site, and including age group as an effect modifier.
resultsOver 3 years, this cohort of 18,877 adults (20.7% severe CHD), 45.9% had at least one hospitalization, 35.1% had an ED visit, 92.1% had an outpatient encounter, and 43.8% had a cardiology outpatient visit. Cardiac diagnostic/imaging procedures occurred in 67.8%, cardiac interventions in 20.3%, and vascular procedures in 10.5%. Severe CHD was associated with higher odds of cardiac procedures but lower odds of ED use than non-severe CHD. Age modified these associations, and site-level variation was marked, with cardiology visit rates ranging from 21% to 59%.
conclusionsAdults with CHD had high healthcare utilization, including frequent ED use, yet fewer than half saw a cardiology specialist, particularly at older ages. These findings highlight persistent gaps in lifelong care and substantial geographic variation, underscoring the need to improve access to specialized care for adults with CHD.
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.