Evidence Hub

The Diagnostic Yield of Prenatal Genetic Technologies in Congenital Heart Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study

F. Mone, B. Stott, S. Hamilton, A. Seale, E. Quinlan-Jones, S. Allen, M. Hurles, D. McMullan et al.

Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 2021

147 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

Introduction: The objective was to evaluate: (i) the proportion of prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease (CHD) associated with an abnormal quantitative fluorescence-PCR (QF-PCR), chromosome microarray (CMA), and exome sequencing (ES) result; and (ii) the diagnostic yield of these technologies based on CHD category and presence of extra-cardiac anomalies (ECAs). Methods: This prospective cohort study was set across 12 UK foetal medicine centres. All cases underwent QF-PCR, CMA, and ES, and the diagnostic yield in n = 147 cases of prenatally diagnosed CHD was assessed. Results: In 34.7% (n = 51/147), a genetic diagnosis was obtained. Using a stepwise testing strategy, the diagnostic yield for QF-PCR, CMA, and ES was 15.6% (n = 23/147), 13.7% (n = 17/124), and 10.2% (n = 11/107), respectively. Abnormal QF-PCR/shunt (septal) defects 31.4% (n = 11/35), p = 0.046, and abnormal CMA/conotruncal anomalies 22.7% (n = 10/44), p = 0.04, had significant associations. Monogenic variants were commonest in complex CHD 36.4% (n = 4/11). Multisystem CHD had a greater diagnostic yield overall compared to isolated OR 2.41 (95% CI, 1.1–5.1), particularly in association with brain and gastrointestinal tract anomalies. The proportion of variants of uncertain significance was 4.7% (n = 5/107) with ES, with none in the CMA group. Conclusion: In the era of prenatal ES, there remains an important role for QF-PCR and CMA. Identification of monogenic pathologic variants further allows…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 147 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free