Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects in newborn infants: an evaluation of acceptability to mothers.

BACKGROUND: Introducing neonatal screening procedures may not be readily accepted by parents and may increase anxiety. The acceptability of pulse oximetry screening to parents has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVE: To assess maternal acceptability of pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects and to identify factors predictive of participation in screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: A questionnaire was completed by a cross-sectional sample of mothers whose babies were recruited into the PulseOx Study which investigated the test accuracy of pulse oximetry screening. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 mothers of babies with false-positive (FP) results, 15 with true-positive and 679 with true-negative results following screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaires included measures of satisfaction with screening, anxiety, depression and perceptions of test results. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly satisfied with screening. The anxiety of mothers given FP results was not significantly higher than that of mothers given true-negative results (median score 32.7 vs 30.0, p=0.09). White British/Irish mothers were more likely to participate in screening, with a decline rate of 5%; other ethnic groups were more likely to decline with the largest increase in declining being for Black African mothers (21%, OR 4.6, 95% CI 3.8 to 5.5). White British mothers were also less anxious (p<0.001) and more satisfied (p<0.001) than those of other ethnicities CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximetry screening was acceptable to mothers and FP results were not found to increase anxiety. Factors leading to differences in participation and satisfaction across ethnic groups need to be identified so that staff can support parents appropriately.

Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects in newborn infants (PulseOx): a test accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Screening for congenital heart defects relies on antenatal ultrasonography and postnatal clinical examination; however, life-threatening defects often are not detected. We prospectively assessed the accuracy of pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart defects. METHODS: In six maternity units in the UK, asymptomatic newborn babies (gestation >34 weeks) were screened with pulse oximetry before discharge. Infants who did not achieve predetermined oxygen saturation thresholds underwent echocardiography. All other infants were followed up to 12 months of age by use of regional and national registries and clinical follow-up. The main outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of pulse oximetry for detection of critical congenital heart defects (causing death or requiring invasive intervention before 28 days) or major congenital heart disease (causing death or requiring invasive intervention within 12 months of age). FINDINGS: 20,055 newborn babies were screened and 53 had major congenital heart disease (24 critical), a prevalence of 2·6 per 1000 livebirths. Analyses were done on all babies for whom a pulse oximetry reading was obtained. Sensitivity of pulse oximetry was 75·00% (95% CI 53·29-90·23) for critical cases and 49·06% (35·06-63·16) for all major congenital heart defects. In 35 cases, congenital heart defects were already suspected after antenatal ultrasonography, and exclusion of these reduced the sensitivity to 58·33% (27·67-84·83) for critical cases and 28·57% (14·64-46·30) for all cases of major congenital heart defects. False-positive results were noted for 169 (0·8%) babies (specificity 99·16%, 99·02-99·28), of which six cases were significant, but not major, congenital heart defects, and 40 were other illnesses that required urgent medical intervention. INTERPRETATION: Pulse oximetry is a safe, feasible test that adds value to existing screening. It identifies cases of critical congenital heart defects that go undetected with antenatal ultrasonography. The early detection of other diseases is an additional advantage. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant treatment to levodopa in later Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Levodopa initially provides good symptomatic control of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, but motor complications often develop after long-term use. Other classes of antiparkinsonian drugs including dopamine agonists, catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitors, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors are then added as adjuvant therapy. It is unclear whether one class of drug is more effective than another. This meta-analysis evaluates the comparative benefits and risks of these agents as adjuvant treatment in Parkinson's disease patients with motor complications. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 1966 to the end of June 2010 was conducted to identify randomized trials involving a dopamine agonist, catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor versus placebo, as adjuvant to levodopa therapy. RESULTS: Forty-five trials involving nearly 9,000 participants were included. The meta-analysis confirms reports from individual trials that compared with placebo, adjuvant therapy significantly reduces patient off-time and levodopa dose, with improved symptom severity scores (e.g., Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale). However, dyskinesia and numerous other side effects are increased with adjuvant therapy. Few randomized comparisons between drugs have been undertaken, but indirect comparisons suggest that dopamine agonist therapy may be more effective than catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor therapy, which have comparable efficacy. No differences between drugs within each class were observed other than the catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor tolcapone appearing more efficacious than entacapone. DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis highlights the need for direct head-to-head randomized trials to assess the impact of adjuvant therapy on patient-rated quality of life and health economic outcomes.

A randomised controlled trial of treatment for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

The cause of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) remains unknown, and no consensus exists on how patients should be monitored and treated. Acetazolamide is a common treatment but has never been examined in a randomised controlled trial. The objectives of this pilot trial are to prospectively evaluate the use of acetazolamide, to explore various outcome measures and to inform the design of a definitive trial in IIH. Fifty patients were recruited from six centres over 23 months and randomised to receive acetazolamide (n = 25) or no acetazolamide (n = 25). Symptoms, body weight, visual function and health-related quality-of-life measures were recorded over a 12-month period. Recruited patients had typical features of mild IIH and most showed improvement, with 44% judged to have IIH in remission at the end of the trial. Difficulties with recruitment were highlighted as well as poor compliance with acetazolamide therapy (12 patients). A composite measure of IIH status was tested, and the strongest concordance with final disease status was seen with perimetry (Somers' D = 0.66) and optic disc appearance (D = 0.59). Based on the study data, a sample size of 320 would be required to demonstrate a 20% treatment effect in a substantive trial. Clinical trials in IIH require pragmatic design to involve sufficiently large numbers of patients. Future studies should incorporate weighted composite scores to reflect the relative importance of common outcome measures in IIH.