Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Neonatal and maternal outcomes of pregnancies with a fetal diagnosis of congenital heart disease using a standardized delivery room management protocol

Journal of Perinatology volume 40, pages 316–323 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

We sought to determine if fetuses with prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease (CHD) were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery in the setting of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing (NRFHT) and to determine if those fetuses were more likely to have a fetal acidosis.

Study design

A retrospective cohort study of neonates prenatally diagnosed with CHD from August 2010 to July 2016. The control group consisted of gestational age matched controls without CHD.

Results

Each group consisted of 143 patients. The most common reason for cesarean delivery was a NRFHT (control 31% vs CHD 35%, p = 0.67). Fetal acidosis was a rare outcome occurring in only five controls (3.5%) and 11 cases (7.7%) (p = 0.12).

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that with multidisciplinary care coordination, fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of CHD have similar cesarean rates, labor and delivery management, and delivery room compromise as healthy fetuses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. “Data and Statistics of Congential Heart Defects.” Congenital Heart Defects, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 2 Nov 2018. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/heartdefects/data.html.

  2. Donofrio MT. Predicting the future: delivery room planning of congenital heart disease diagnosed by fetal echocardiography. Am J Perinatol. 2018;35:549–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanapo L, Pruetz JD, Slodki M, Goens MB, Moon-Grady AJ, Donofrio MT. Fetal echocardiography for planning perinatal and delivery room care of neonates with congenital heart disease. Echocardiography. 2017;34:1804–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cnota JF, Gupta R, Michelfelder EC, Ittenbach RF. Congenital heart disease infant death rates decrease as gestational age advances from 34 to 40 weeks. J Pediatr. 2011;159:761–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Landis BJ, Levey A, Levasseur SM, Glickstein JS, Kleinman CS, Simpson LL, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease and birth outcomes. Pediatr Cardiol. 2013;34:597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Trento LU, Pruetz JD, Chang RK, Detterich J, Sklansky MS. Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease: Impact of mode of delivery on neonatal outcome. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:1250–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Walsh CA, MacTiernan A, Farrell S, Mulcahy C, McMahon CJ, Franklin O, et al. Mode of delivery in pregnancies complicated by major fetal congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study. J Perinatol. 2014;34:901–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Peyvandi S, Nguyen TA, Almeida-Jones M, Boe N, Rhee L, Anton T, et al. Timing and mode of delivery in prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease- an analysis of practices within the university of california fetal consortium (UCfC). Pediatr Cardiol. 2017;38:588–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Parikh LI, Grantz KL, Iqbal SN, Huang CC, Landy HJ, Fries MH, et al. Neonatal outcomes in fetuses with cardiac anomalies and the impact of delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:469.e1–e12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM, Cuthbert A. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD006066.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ueda K, Ikeda T, Iwanaga N, Katsuragi S, Yamanaka K, Neki R, et al. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring in cases of congenital heart disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:64.e1–e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Donofrio MT, Levy RJ, Schuette JJ, Skurow-Todd K, Sten MB, Stallings C, et al. Specialized delivery room planning for fetuses with critical congenital heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111:737–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Donofrio MT, Moon-Grady AJ, Hornberger LK, Copel JA, Sklansky MS, Abuhamad A, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of fetal cardiac disease: a scientific statement from the american heart association. Circulation 2014;129:2183–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Donofrio MT, Skurow-Todd K, Berger JT, McCarter R, Fulgium A, Krishnan A, et al. Risk-stratified postnatal care of newborns with congenital heart disease determined by fetal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28:1339–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1232–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nardozza LMM, Zamarian ACP, Araujo Junior E. New definition of fetal growth restriction: Consensus regarding a major obstetric complication. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017;39:315–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. “Updated National Birth Prevalence Estimates for Selected Birth Defects | CDC.” Birth Defects, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 1 Nov 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/features/birthdefects-keyfindings.html.

  19. Perez-Delboy A, Simpson LL. Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of congenital heart disease and intrauterine growth restriction: a case-control study. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35:376–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wallenstein MB, Harper LM, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Longman RE, Macones GA, et al. Fetal congenital heart disease and intrauterine growth restriction: a retrospective cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:662–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Song MS, Hu A, Dyamenahalli U, Chitayat D, Winsor EJ, Ryan G, et al. Extracardiac lesions and chromosomal abnormalities associated with major fetal heart defects: Comparison of intrauterine, postnatal and postmortem diagnoses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:552–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Randis TM, Rice MM, Myatt L, Tita ATN, Leveno KJ, Reddy UM, et al. Incidence of early-onset sepsis in infants born to women with clinical chorioamnionitis. J Perinat Med. 2018;46:926–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoppe KK, Schiff MA, Benedetti TJ, Delaney S. Duration of spontaneous active labor and perinatal outcomes using contemporary labor curves. Am J Perinatol. 2018;35:1186–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Faiz AS, Ananth CV. Etiology and risk factors for placenta previa: an overview and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13:175–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller DA, Chollet JA, Goodwin TM. Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:210–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:693–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Miyoshi T, Katsuragi S, Neki R, Kurosaki KI, Shiraishi I, Nakai M, et al. Cardiovascular profile score as a predictor of acute intrapartum non-reassuring fetal status in infants with congenital heart defects. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30:2831–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeh P, Emary K, Impey L. The relationship between umbilical cord arterial pH and serious adverse neonatal outcome: analysis of 51,519 consecutive validated samples. BJOG. 2012;119:824–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Victory R, Penava D, Da Silva O, Natale R, Richardson B. Umbilical cord pH and base excess values in relation to adverse outcome events for infants delivering at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:2021–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Committee on Obstetric Practice American Academy of Pediatrics - Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Committee opinion no. 644: the apgar score. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e52–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Penfield CA, Hong C, Ibrahim Sel H, Kilpatrick SJ, Gregory KD. Easy as ABC: a system to stratify category II fetal heart rate tracings. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33:688–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Soncini E, Paganelli S, Vezzani C, Gargano G, Giovanni Battista LS. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: Evaluation of a standardized system of interpretation for prediction of metabolic acidosis at delivery and neonatal neurological morbidity. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27:1465–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dadlez NM, Brubaker SG, Simpson LL, Yilmaz B, Williams IA. Impact of change in delivery practice on neonatal and maternal outcomes in cases of significant congenital heart disease. Congenit Heart Dis. 2014;9:368–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peterson AL, Quartermain MD, Ades A, Khalek N, Johnson MP, Rychik J. Impact of mode of delivery on markers of perinatal hemodynamics in infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. J Pediatr. 2011;159:64–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank MedStar Health Research Institute for assistance with data collection.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Mary T. Donofrio, Sara N Iqbal

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C., USA

    April D. Adams, Melissa H. Fries & Sara N Iqbal

  2. Division of Cardiology, Children’s National Health System, Washington, D.C., USA

    Nimisha Aggarwal & Mary T. Donofrio

Authors
  1. April D. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nimisha Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa H. Fries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary T. Donofrio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sara N Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to April D. Adams.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adams, A.D., Aggarwal, N., Fries, M.H. et al. Neonatal and maternal outcomes of pregnancies with a fetal diagnosis of congenital heart disease using a standardized delivery room management protocol. J Perinatol 40, 316–323 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0528-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0528-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links