Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letter
Duct-dependent congenital heart disease in very preterm infants
  1. Kristin N Ferguson1,
  2. Sheryle R Rogerson1,2,3,
  3. Peter G Davis1,2,4,
  4. Bryn O Jones5,6,
  5. Darren Hutchinson5,6,
  6. Rod W Hunt4,6,7,
  7. Brett J Manley1,2,4
  1. 1 Department of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Paediatric, Infant and Perinatal Emergency Retrieval, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Department of Clinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Department of Cardiology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6 Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  7. 7 Department of Neonatology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kristin N Ferguson, Department of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; kristin.n.ferg{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Duct-dependent congenital heart disease (DD-CHD) encompasses severe cardiac malformations that rely on postnatal patency of the ductus arteriosus to maintain adequate circulation. Prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) is most commonly used to maintain patency of the ductus arteriosus. Both prematurity (birth before 37 weeks’ gestation) and low birth weight (<2500 g) are associated with poor prognosis for infants with congenital heart disease.1 2 There are few reports of the outcomes of very preterm infants born at <32 weeks’ gestation with DD-CHD treated with PGE1. We aimed to describe the mortality and morbidity of this relatively rare but high-risk group.

A review was undertaken of the medical records of very preterm infants with DD-CHD treated with PGE1 born at The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, between January 2006 and December 2016. Infants were excluded if …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors KF: design of study; acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; and drafting and revisions of the manuscript. SR: conception and design of study, analysis and interpretation of data and revisions of the manuscript. PGD: conception and design of study, analysis and interpretation of data, and revisions of the manuscript. BOJ: conception and design of study, analysis and interpretation of data, and revisions of the manuscript. DH: conception and design of study, analysis and interpretation of data and revisions of the manuscript. RWH: conception and design of study, analysis and interpretation of data, and revisions of the manuscript. BJM: conception and design of study, analysis and interpretation of data, and revisions of the manuscript. All authors approved the submission of the manuscript for consideration of publication and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Ethical approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee at The Royal Women’s Hospital, and also at the surgical unit, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne (HREC 36246A).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.