• Home
  • Contact Us!
  • Privacy Policy

Radio Metta

  • Home
  • Business
  • Education
  • Health
  • Home Deco
  • News
  • Real Estate
  • Technology
  • Contact Us!
  • Privacy Policy
Home» Health»EBM Focus: Finger on the Pulse: Standard vs Revised Newborn Pulse-ox Screening for Congenital Heart Disease

EBM Focus: Finger on the Pulse: Standard vs Revised Newborn Pulse-ox Screening for Congenital Heart Disease

Loknath Das 09 Feb 2022 Health Comments Off on EBM Focus: Finger on the Pulse: Standard vs Revised Newborn Pulse-ox Screening for Congenital Heart Disease 7 Views

Nurse holding tablet

Critical congenital heart defects (CCHD) are the most common congenital malformations and account for up to 10 percent of infant deaths each year. Universal screening with pulse oximetry screening has been recommended for more than a decade. The updated 2018 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) algorithm recommends testing in the (pre-ductal) right upper extremity and one of the feet, with a pulse ox of at least 95 percent in both extremities with under three percent difference between the two extremities required for a negative screen. The current algorithm allows for only one rescreen an hour after the first. The prior iteration of the algorithm was more liberal —- with passing results given to newborns with a pulse oximetry of at least 95 percent in either extremity with allowance for two rescreens. Studies have found variability in the rates of false positive results and raise concerns about the anxiety and cost of false positive screening, particularly with the newer, stricter algorithm.

Investigators at a large community hospital conducted a retrospective study from 2012 to 2020 to evaluate the test characteristics of pulse-ox screening based upon the standard and revised algorithms. After excluding those with prenatally diagnosed CCHD or symptoms, 65,403 newborns admitted to the well-baby nursery during this time were screened. Data from pulse-ox screening were extracted from a Department of Health database, which keeps records of all newborn screens. Authors conducted extensive chart review at the community hospital and surrounding tertiary care centers for those with an abnormal pulse-ox screening. Those with a normal pulse-ox but abnormal echocardiogram (obtained for other reasons) were counted as false negative results. To identify false negatives after discharge, researchers searched a large surveillance database for newborns with a normal pulse-ox screening and subsequent CCHD diagnosis.

Based on the standard algorithm, a total of 31 newborns had an abnormal pulse-ox screening (fail rate of 4.6 per 10,000). Of these, 12 had CCHD such as total anomalous pulmonary venous return or aortic coarctation, nine had non-CCHD, such as AV canal defect, and the remainder had a non-cardiac condition such as pneumonia. Through the registry data of the state, one false negative was identified over the eight-year period, a newborn found to have aortic coarctation at 31 days of life. This resulted in a specificity of 99.97 percent and a sensitivity of 92.3 percent for CCHD. If the revised algorithm had been applied, five additional newborns would have failed. Only one of these had a significant non-CCHD illness and the remainder would have been classified as normal, increasing the false-positive rate to 0.04 percent (4 per 10,000).

Pulse oximetry appears to meet all the criteria for a ‘good’ screening test. This relatively easy, cheap, and quick test appears to identify most cases of CCHD. Limitations to this study include incomplete ascertainment of false negative results as only a single state registry was searched for missed cases. The standard and revised versions of the pulse-ox screening algorithm identified CCHD at similar rates, suggesting that the revised algorithm may result in more false positive results without additional benefit.

[“source=ebsco”]

congenital disease EBM Finger Focus for heart Newborn on Pulse Pulse-ox revised screening Standard the vs 2022-02-09
Tags congenital disease EBM Finger Focus for heart Newborn on Pulse Pulse-ox revised screening Standard the vs
Facebook Twitter Stumble linkedin Pinterest More

Authors

Posted by : Loknath Das
Previous Article :

Feel Fit in February

Next Article :

Ideas that will shake you: Building Back Better

Related Articles

Firefly Health Taps Oshi Health to Add Whole-Person Digestive Care to Its Virtual Specialty Network

Loknath Das 06 Jun 2022

This Relentless Pandemic Can Tax Your Mental Health. Here’s How to Cope

Loknath Das 11 Apr 2022

Study: Two New Early Signs of Parkinson’s Disease Identified

Loknath Das 05 Apr 2022

Latest Post

News

Your SEO Budget Is Determining Your Success

admin 03 Sep 2022
News

WAN Connection Method – Frame Relay

admin 26 Aug 2022
Education

GESS Proudly Supports and Sponsors UAE Based Team in Global STEM Challenge

Loknath Das 28 Jul 2022
Technology

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4 gets FCC certification

Loknath Das 22 Jul 2022
Education

USF faculty, students to present at 2022 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting

Loknath Das 22 Jul 2022
Technology

“Critical” We Understand Digital Money’s Impact: US Policymaker

Loknath Das 07 Jun 2022
Health

Firefly Health Taps Oshi Health to Add Whole-Person Digestive Care to Its Virtual Specialty Network

Loknath Das 06 Jun 2022
May 2023
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Sep    
  • Home
  • Contact Us!
  • Privacy Policy
Copyright 2016, All Rights Reserved
Magazine Blog News WordPress Theme