Geographical challenges and inequity of healthcare access for high-risk paediatric heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Geographical context is an important consideration for health system design to promote equality in access to care for patients with childhood heart disease (CHD), particularly those living in regional, rural, and remote areas. To help inform future policy and practice recommendations, this study aimed to (i) describe the geographic distribution of high-risk CHD patients accessing an Australian state-wide specialist service and (ii) estimate travel time for accessing healthcare via general practitioners (primary), nearest paediatric centre (secondary) and specialist paediatric cardiac centre (tertiary). METHODS: Participants included a cohort of children (0-18 year) who accessed state-wide specialist CHD services over a 3-year period (2019-2021) in Queensland, Australia. Locations for patient residence, general practitioner, closest paediatric centre and tertiary cardiac centre were mapped using geographical information system (GIS) software (ArcGIS Online). Travel distance and times were estimated using a Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). RESULTS: 1019 patients (median age 3.8 years) had cardiac intervention and were included in the sample. Of this cohort, 30.2% lived outside the heavily urbanised South East Queensland (SEQ) area where the tertiary centre is located. These patients travel substantially further and longer to access tertiary level care (but not secondary or primary level care) compared to those in SEQ. Median distance for patients residing outside SEQ to access tertiary care was 953 km with a travel time of 10 h 43 min. This compares to 5.5 km to the general practitioner and 20.6 km to a paediatric service (8.9 and 54 min respectively). CONCLUSION: This geographical mapping of CHD services has demonstrated a key challenge inherent in providing specialist cardiac care to children in a large state-based healthcare system. A significant proportion of high-risk patients live large distances from tertiary level care. The greater accessibility of primary care services highlights the importance of supporting primary care physicians outside metropolitan areas to acquire or build the ability and capacity to care for children with CHD. Strengthening local primary and secondary services not only has the potential to improve the outcomes of high-risk patients, but also to reduce costs and burden associated with potentially avoidable travel from regional, rural, or remote areas to access specialist CHD services.

Balloon dilatation versus surgical valvotomy for congenital aortic stenosis: a propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Balloon valvuloplasty and surgical aortic valvotomy have been the treatment mainstays for congenital aortic stenosis in children. Choice of intervention often differs depending upon centre bias with limited relevant, comparative literature. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an unbiased, contemporary matched comparison of these balloon and surgical approaches. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with congenital aortic valve stenosis who underwent balloon valvuloplasty (Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane) or surgical valvotomy (Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne) between 2005 and 2016. Patients were excluded if pre-intervention assessment indicated ineligibility to either group. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, weight, and valve morphology. RESULTS: Sixty-five balloon patients and seventy-seven surgical patients were included. Overall, the groups were well matched with 18 neonates/25 infants in the balloon group and 17 neonates/28 infants in the surgical group. Median age at balloon was 92 days (range 2 days - 18.8 years) compared to 167 days (range 0 days - 18.1 years) for surgery (rank-sum p = 0.08). Mean follow-up was 5.3 years. There was one late balloon death and two early surgical deaths due to left ventricular failure. There was no significant difference in freedom from reintervention at latest follow-up (69% in the balloon group and 70% in the surgical group, p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary analysis of balloon aortic valvuloplasty and surgical aortic valvotomy shows no difference in overall reintervention rates in the medium term. Balloon valvuloplasty performs well across all age groups, achieving delay or avoidance of surgical intervention.