The Residual Lesion Score is a novel tool for assessing the achievement of surgical objectives in congenital heart surgery based on widely available clinical and echocardiographic characteristics. This article describes the methodology used to develop the Residual Lesion Score from the previously developed Technical Performance Score for five common congenital cardiac procedures using the RAND Delphi methodology.

A panel of 11 experts from the field of paediatric and congenital cardiology and cardiac surgery, 2 co-chairs, and a consultant were assembled to review and comment on validity and feasibility of measuring the sub-components of intraoperative and discharge Residual Lesion Score for five congenital cardiac procedures. In the first email round, the panel reviewed and commented on the Residual Lesion Score and provided validity and feasibility scores for sub-components of each of the five procedures. In the second in-person round, email comments and scores were reviewed and the Residual Lesion Score revised. The modified Residual Lesion Score was scored independently by each panellist for validity and feasibility and used to develop the “final” Residual Lesion Score.

The Residual Lesion Score sub-components with a median validity score of ≥7 and median feasibility score of ≥4 that were scored without disagreement and with low absolute deviation from the median were included in the “final” Residual Lesion Score.

Using the RAND Delphi methodology, we were able to develop Residual Lesion Score modules for five important congenital cardiac procedures for the Pediatric Heart Network’s Residual Lesion Score study.

Growth failure is prevalent among infants with CHD. A Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan was introduced at Boston Children’s Hospital’s cardiac medical ward to identify patients with growth failure, evaluate relevant contributing conditions, and recommend a management plan including collaboration with nutrition physicians.

The objective of this study was to determine whether enrolled patients had improved growth compared with historical controls.

A total of 29 patients were enrolled in the period July, 2013–June, 2014. In all, 42 historical controls who met eligibility criteria for enrolment were selected for comparison from patients admitted to the same ward in the period June, 2010–June, 2011. Patients with CHD aged <1 year , with growth failure defined as weight-for-age z-score <−2, or failure to sustain adequate weight gain were eligible for participation. Primary outcome was change in weight-for-age z-score from enrolment to most recent weight measurement among patients with at least 6 months of follow-up.

Control patients were older at baseline admission weight (118 versus 95 days, p=0.33), and had a higher weight-for-age z-score, −2.9 (−3.1, −2.6) versus −3.7 (−4.3, −3.0) (p=0.02), compared with enrolled patients. Enrolled patients had greater gain in weight-for-age z-score, 2.7 (2.0, 3.4) versus 1.8 (1.5, 2.2) (p=0.03), from baseline to most recent follow-up.

Patients enrolled in a nutrition-focused protocol had greater weight improvement than historical controls. Identification of growth failure and collaboration with a nutrition support team was associated with improved weight gain among CHD patients experiencing growth failure. CHD programmes should consider a structural approach, including nutrition expertise to address growth failure.