Sara B. Stephens, Renata H. Benjamin, Keila N. Lopez, Brett R. Anderson, Angela E. Lin, Charles J. Shumate, Wendy N. Nembhard, Shaine A. Morris, A. J. Agopian
{"title":"Enhancing the Classification of Congenital Heart Defects for Outcome Association Studies in Birth Defects Registries","authors":"Sara B. Stephens, Renata H. Benjamin, Keila N. Lopez, Brett R. Anderson, Angela E. Lin, Charles J. Shumate, Wendy N. Nembhard, Shaine A. Morris, A. J. Agopian","doi":"10.1002/bdr2.2393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Traditional strategies for grouping congenital heart defects (CHDs) using birth defect registry data do not adequately address differences in expected clinical consequences between different combinations of CHDs. We report a lesion-specific classification system for birth defect registry–based outcome studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>For Core Cardiac Lesion Outcome Classifications (C-CLOC) groups, common CHDs expected to have reasonable clinical homogeneity were defined. Criteria based on combinations of Centers for Disease and Control-modified British Pediatric Association (BPA) codes were defined for each C-CLOC group. To demonstrate proof of concept and retention of reasonable case counts within C-CLOC groups, Texas Birth Defect Registry data (1999–2017 deliveries) were used to compare case counts and neonatal mortality between traditional vs. C-CLOC classification approaches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>C-CLOC defined 59 CHD groups among 62,262 infants with CHDs. Classifying cases into the single, mutually exclusive C-CLOC group reflecting the highest complexity CHD present reduced case counts among lower complexity lesions (e.g., 86.5% of cases with a common atrium BPA code were reclassified to a higher complexity group for a co-occurring CHD). As expected, C-CLOC groups had retained larger sample sizes (i.e., representing presumably better-powered analytic groups) compared to cases with only one CHD code and no occurring CHDs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>This new CHD classification system for investigators using birth defect registry data, C-CLOC, is expected to balance clinical outcome homogeneity in analytic groups while maintaining sufficiently large case counts within categories, thus improving power for CHD-specific outcome association comparisons. Future outcome studies utilizing C-CLOC-based classifications are planned.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9121,"journal":{"name":"Birth Defects Research","volume":"116 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth Defects Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdr2.2393","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Traditional strategies for grouping congenital heart defects (CHDs) using birth defect registry data do not adequately address differences in expected clinical consequences between different combinations of CHDs. We report a lesion-specific classification system for birth defect registry–based outcome studies.
Methods
For Core Cardiac Lesion Outcome Classifications (C-CLOC) groups, common CHDs expected to have reasonable clinical homogeneity were defined. Criteria based on combinations of Centers for Disease and Control-modified British Pediatric Association (BPA) codes were defined for each C-CLOC group. To demonstrate proof of concept and retention of reasonable case counts within C-CLOC groups, Texas Birth Defect Registry data (1999–2017 deliveries) were used to compare case counts and neonatal mortality between traditional vs. C-CLOC classification approaches.
Results
C-CLOC defined 59 CHD groups among 62,262 infants with CHDs. Classifying cases into the single, mutually exclusive C-CLOC group reflecting the highest complexity CHD present reduced case counts among lower complexity lesions (e.g., 86.5% of cases with a common atrium BPA code were reclassified to a higher complexity group for a co-occurring CHD). As expected, C-CLOC groups had retained larger sample sizes (i.e., representing presumably better-powered analytic groups) compared to cases with only one CHD code and no occurring CHDs.
Discussion
This new CHD classification system for investigators using birth defect registry data, C-CLOC, is expected to balance clinical outcome homogeneity in analytic groups while maintaining sufficiently large case counts within categories, thus improving power for CHD-specific outcome association comparisons. Future outcome studies utilizing C-CLOC-based classifications are planned.
期刊介绍:
The journal Birth Defects Research publishes original research and reviews in areas related to the etiology of adverse developmental and reproductive outcome. In particular the journal is devoted to the publication of original scientific research that contributes to the understanding of the biology of embryonic development and the prenatal causative factors and mechanisms leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely structural and functional birth defects, pregnancy loss, postnatal functional defects in the human population, and to the identification of prenatal factors and biological mechanisms that reduce these risks.
Adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes may have genetic, environmental, nutritional or epigenetic causes. Accordingly, the journal Birth Defects Research takes an integrated, multidisciplinary approach in its organization and publication strategy. The journal Birth Defects Research contains separate sections for clinical and molecular teratology, developmental and reproductive toxicology, and reviews in developmental biology to acknowledge and accommodate the integrative nature of research in this field. Each section has a dedicated editor who is a leader in his/her field and who has full editorial authority in his/her area.