Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T03:33:29.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of interdisciplinary counselling for parental decision-making in cases of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed CHD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2022

Katja Schneider Open the ORCID record for Katja Schneider [Opens in a new window] ,
Dafni Bousi  and
Rüdiger Stressig
Katja Schneider*
Affiliation:
Department of Neonatology, GFO Kliniken, Bonn, Germany
Dafni Bousi
Affiliation:
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Städtische Kliniken, Cologne, Germany
Rüdiger Stressig
Affiliation:
Department of Fetal Diagnostics, Pränatal Plus, Cologne, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Katja Schneider, Department of Neonatology, GFO Kliniken Bonn, Robert-Koch-Straße 1, 53115 Bonn, Germany. Tel: +49 151 5694223. Fax: +49 228 5052903. E-mail: katja.schneider@gfo-kliniken-bonn.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Parental counselling after antenatal diagnosis of a congenital heart defect requires a high degree of professional and emotional competence and ultimately a sense of responsibility on the part of the consulting physicians. However, little is known about parents` perceptions and evaluation of these consultations.

Material/Methods:

Survey on 425 women who received interdisciplinary counselling after antenatal diagnosis of a complex fetal congenital heart defect in a specialized prenatal outpatient clinic with an affiliated paediatric heart centre. Two questionnaires were used to retrospectively evaluate the parental perception and impact on counselling, particularly on decision-making. Questionnaires differed between women conceiving the child and women who terminated the pregnancy.

Results:

400 women continued, 25 women terminated the pregnancy after diagnosis and counselling. Good quality of life was reported for 68% of the children, 15% died postnatally in the further course. 95% rated the counselling as good or very good regardless of the child´s outcome. 73% described the counselling as highly important for their subsequent decision. The possibility of termination of pregnancy was discussed with 37% of the respondents, 22% of them found it outrageous or very distressing. Of all respondents, one woman would have made a different decision regarding continuation of the pregnancy in retrospect.

Conclusion:

Retrospectively, parents rate prenatal counselling extremely positively, irrespective of the severity of the child´s heart defect. It can be assumed that the consistent joint interdisciplinary consultation and the high reputation of the cooperating heart centre have had an influence on the below-average rate of termination of pregnancy.

Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 33 , Issue 7 , July 2023 , pp. 1172 - 1176
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The online version of this article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has also been published

References

van der Linde, D, Konings, EE, Slager, MA, et al. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 2241–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lytzen, R, Vejlstrup, N, Bjerre, J, et al. The accuracy of prenatal diagnosis of major congenital heart disease is increasing. J Obstet Gynaecol 2020; 40: 308–315.10.1080/01443615.2019.1621814CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, BJ, Myers, JA, Woods, CR Jr Prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease reduces risk of death from cardiovascular compromise prior to planned neonatal cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 631–8.10.1002/uog.14882CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tworetzky, W, McElhinney, DB, Reddy, VM, Brook, MM, Hanley, FL, Silverman, NH. Improved surgical outcome after fetal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Circulation 2001; 103: 1269–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahle, WT, Clancy, RR, McGaurn, SP, Goin, JE, Clark, BJ. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on survival and early neurologic morbidity in neonates with the hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatrics 2001; 107: 1277–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bensemlali, M, Stirnemann, J, Le Bidois, J, et al. Discordances between pre-natal and post-natal diagnoses of congenital heart diseases and impact on care strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 921–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, LK, Ehrlich, A, Stauffer, N, Samai, C, Kogon, B, Oster, ME. Relation of prenatal diagnosis with one-year survival rate for infants with congenital heart disease. Am J Cardiol 2014; 113: 1041–4.10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.11.065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khoshnood, B, Lelong, N, Houyel, L, et al. EPICARD study group. impact of prenatal diagnosis on survival of newborns with four congenital heart defects: a prospective, population-based cohort study in France (the EPICARD Study). BMJ Open 2017; 7: e018285.10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincenti, M, Guillaumont, S, Clarivet, B, et al. Prognosis of severe congenital heart diseases: do we overestimate the impact of prenatal diagnosis? Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2019; 112: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverman, NH, Moon-Grady, AJ. Discordant fetal and post-natal diagnosis: can we do better? J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 931–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilton-Kamm, D, Chang, RK, Sklansky, M. Prenatal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome: impact of counseling patterns on parental perceptions and decisions regarding termination of pregnancy. Pediatr Cardiol 2012; 33: 1402–10.10.1007/s00246-012-0366-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, CK. Prenatal counseling of fetal congenital heart disease. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2017; 19: 5.10.1007/s11936-017-0502-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilton-Kamm, D, Sklansky, M, Chang, RK. How not to tell parents about their child’s new diagnosis of congenital heart disease: an internet survey of 841 parents. Pediatr Cardiol 2014; 35: 239–252.10.1007/s00246-013-0765-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menahem, S. Ethical questions arising from counselling in fetal complex congenital heart disease. Monash Bioeth Rev 2012; 30: 62–7.10.1007/BF03351340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertaud, S, Lloyd, DFA, Sharland, G, Razavi, R, Bluebond-Langner, M. The impact of prenatal counselling on mothers of surviving children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome: A qualitative interview study.Google Scholar
Marokakis, S, Kasparian, NA, Kennedy, SE. Prenatal counselling for congenital anomalies: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn 2016; 36: 662–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, KW, Brelsford, KM, Kavanaugh-McHugh, A, Clayton, EW. Uncertainty of prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease: a qualitative study. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e204082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, HS, Pituch, K, Uzark, K, et al. A randomised trial of early palliative care for maternal stress in infants prenatally diagnosed with single-ventricle heart disease. Cardiol Young 2018; 28: 561–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bratt, EL, Järvholm, S, Ekman-Joelsson, BM, et al. Parental reactions, distress, and sense of coherence after prenatal versus postnatal diagnosis of complex congenital heart disease. Cardiol Young 2019; 29: 1328–1334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Velzen, CL, Clur, SA, Rijlaarsdam, ME, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects: accuracy and discrepancies in a multicenter cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 616–22.10.1002/uog.15742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baardman, ME, du Marchie Sarvaas, GJ, de Walle, HE, et al. Impact of introduction of 20-week ultrasound scan on prevalence and fetal and neonatal outcomes in cases of selected severe congenital heart defects in The Netherlands. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44: 58–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lytzen, R, Vejlstrup, N, Bjerre, J, et al. Live-Born major congenital heart disease in denmark: incidence, detection rate, and termination of pregnancy rate from 1996 to 2013. JAMA Cardiol 2018; 3: 829–837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gendler, Y, Birk, E, Tabak, N, Koton, S. Factors that influence parents’ decision-making regarding termination of pregnancy after prenatal diagnosis of fetal congenital heart disease. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2021; 50: 475–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenni, N, Lacroze, V, Pouet, C, et al. Fetal heart disease and interruption of pregnancy: factors influencing the parental decision-making process. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32: 168–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kon, AA, Ackerson, L, Lo, B. How pediatricians counsel parents when no “best-choice” management exists: lessons to be learned from hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158: 436–41.10.1001/archpedi.158.5.436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ernst, MM, Marino, BS, Cassedy, A, et al. Biopsychosocial predictors of quality of life outcomes in pediatric congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 2018; 39: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, ST, Song, J, Huh, J, et al. The effect of multidisciplinary approach on the birth rate of fetuses with prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease. J Korean Med Sci 2019; 34.Google ScholarPubMed