Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Oct 5;15(10):e0239476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239476

Accuracy of prenatal screening for congenital heart disease in population: A retrospective study in Southern France

Cornélie Suard 1,*,#, Audrey Flori 2,#, Florent Paoli 3, Anderson Loundou 4, Virginie Fouilloux 5, Sabine Sigaudy 6,7, Fabrice Michel 8, Julie Antomarchi 9, Pamela Moceri 10, Véronique Paquis-Flucklinger 11, Claude D’Ercole 1,12,13,14,, Florence Bretelle 1,12,13,14,
Editor: Andrew Sharp15
PMCID: PMC7535055  PMID: 33017437

Abstract

Congenital heart diseases (CHDs) are the most common congenital malformations. The objective of our study was to evaluate the prenatal screening accuracy of congenital heart disease (CHD) in Southern France and to evaluate the impact of a prenatal diagnosis on pregnancies outcomes and neonatal outcomes. We performed a bicentric, retrospective observational study in the southern region over 4 years was conducted between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017. All foetuses and children under one year of age with CHD monitored in the UTHs (University Teaching Hospitals) in Marseille and Nice were included. CHD cases were divided into 3 groups: group 1, those with no possible options for anatomical repair; group 2, those with anatomical repair possibilities but that may require neonatal cardiologic management; and group 3, those with anatomical repair possibilities that do not require an emergency neonatal procedure. Among the 249070 deliveries during the study period, 677 CHD cases were included in the study. The overall prenatal screening rate was 71.5%. The screening rates were 97.8%, 63.6%, and 65.9% for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among group 2 CHD cases, 80% of the transpositions of the great arteries, 56% of the aortic coarctations, and 20% of the total anomalous pulmonary venous returns were detected during the prenatal period. A genetic anomaly was found in 16% of CHD cases. The overall mortality rate was 11.3% with a higher death rate in cases of prenatal screening (17.2% versus 2.1%; p < 0.001). However, when focusing only on children who died of CHD, prenatal screening did not create an impact (56.6% versus 100%, p = 0,140). Our data showed that the prenatal screening rate of CHD appears satisfactory in Southern France. Nevertheless, it could be improved for some CHD. This study did not find any benefit in terms of mortality from prenatal screening for CHD.

Introduction

Congenital heart diseases (CHDs) are the most common congenital malformations, representing one-third of all cases [1]. In Europe, these malformations represent approximately thirty-six thousand live births per year, or a prevalence of approximately seven in one thousand live births [1,2]. CHD is a major cause of mortality due to congenital malformation in the first year of life [3].

In European countries, the screening rate varies depending on the modalities of the screening programmes. The screening rate ranges from 17.9% in the absence of organised screening to 55.6% when 2 or 3 ultrasounds are carried out systematically [4]. In France, three ultrasounds are recommended during pregnancy.

However, in 2016, the National Perinatal Survey showed that an average of 5.5 ultrasounds were performed [5]. This screening rate varies depending on the region, from 47.3% in the Paris area [6] to 71% in Haute-Normandie [7].

The benefits of prenatal CHD screening regarding morbidity-mortality appear inconsistent in terms of survival according to some studies [4,69]. However, among neonates with CHD, a prenatal diagnosis seems to be associated with lower rates of preoperative risk factors for cardiac surgery [10]. Furthermore, a prenatal diagnosis could improve the prognosis of children with regard to morbidity, particularly concerning the neurocognitive development level [9,11,12]. Some CHDs are associated with genetic abnormalities, and prenatal screening for them allows for a genetic investigation [13,14].

Some studies have demonstrated the value of training on the efficiency of prenatal heart disease screening [7,15].

Prenatal screening for CHD has never been studied in the southern region of France.

The main objective of this study was to assess prenatal screening rates for CHD in Southern France and their impact on pregnancies outcomes and neonatal outcomes.

Materials and methods

This study specifically received approval from the Ethics Committee at the University of Aix-Marseille on May 29, 2018 (file reference: 2018-24-05-007). The CIL (Correspondant Informatique et Libertés) was made aware of the study complying with French law (reference: DSN_2018-07-27_7419). Data were collected from anonymized medical records.

A 4-year retrospective observational study was carried out in Southern France between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017. This regional study included the University Teaching Hospitals (UTHs) in Marseille (UTH Nord and UTH Timone) and Nice (UTH Archet and UTH Lenval) as well as their three Multidisciplinary Prenatal Diagnosis Centres (MPDCs) located at the UTH Nord, the UTH Timone in Marseille, and the UTH Archet in Nice.

The data were collected retrospectively from computerised patient medical files by two researchers and anonymized. Research was performed on Viewpoint ultrasound software (GE healthcare) to help identify all foetuses with CHD. An inventory of all the children hospitalised in one of the departments was performed using the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases) Code for CHD.

Inclusion criteria

This study included foetuses and children under the age of one year whose diagnosis of CHD was made in their prenatal or postnatal period during the study period. All foetuses with CHD appraised in one of the 3 MPDCs involved during the study period and all children under the age of one year with CHD discovered during the first year of life who needed hospitalisation in the paediatric cardiology, paediatric cardiac surgery or paediatric cardiac intensive care units at the UTH in Marseille or in the paediatric department at the UTH in Nice during the study period were included.

The CHD cases studied were classified into 3 groups according to the classification system used in the study by Durand et al. [7] (Fig 1):

Fig 1. Classification of congenital heart disease types.

Fig 1

† CHD that cannot be repaired and associated with several anomalies of the cardiac structure that do not make it possible to classify them in any category according to their anatomy. # Total anomalous pulmonary venous return. ‡ Divided into peri-membranous, admission, muscular and conoventricular VSD, VSD: ventricular septal defect.

  • Group 1: a heart defect with no possibility for anatomical repair.

  • Group 2: a heart defect with a possibility for anatomical repair but that may require neonatal cardiologic management.

  • Group 3: a heart defect with the possibility for anatomical repair that does not require emergency neonatal procedures.

Double aortic arches, ventricular septal defects, heart tumours and anomalies of the origin of the pulmonary artery were also considered. The exclusion criteria were heart rhythm disorders, isolated pericardial effusion, patent ductus arteriosus, atrial septal defects and anomalies at the origins of the coronary arteries. Anatomic variation such as right aortic arch isolated were not recorded.

Data collected

For each foetus included, the data collected were the gestational age at diagnosis, the existence of polymalformative syndrome (PMS) or an associated genetic anomaly, the occurrence of foetal death, and the realisation of a termination of pregnancy (TOP) with an analysis of the gestational age and aetiology of it. In cases of a postnatal diagnosis, the parameters studied were the age at the time of diagnosis and the discovery of an associated PMS or genetic anomaly. For all children born with CHD, the following data were collected: the requirement for hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit and the duration in number of days, the existence of PMS or an associated genetic anomaly, and the occurrence of death.

Definitions

PMS is defined as the presence of another organ malformation or foetal growth restriction associated with CHD. Complex cardiopathy is defined as CHD that cannot be repaired and is associated with multiple anomalies in the cardiac structure that do not make it possible to classify it in any one category according to its anatomy. Anomalies in the number or structure of the chromosomes grouped together under the term “genetic anomalies”. Amniocentesis with karyotype or CGH array was proposed for all patient in case of prenatal diagnosis.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using PASW Statistics version 17.02 (IBM SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables are expressed as means ± SDs or as medians with ranges (min, max), and categorical variables are reported as counts and percentages. Comparisons of the mean values between two groups were performed using Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Comparisons of percentages were performed using a Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. All tests were two-sided, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

Population

Among 249070 deliveries during the study period, 772 CHD cases were identified. Seventy-one cases were excluded because the data on pregnancy outcomes were incomplete, and 24 more were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (Fig 2). In total, 677 CHD cases were included, out of which 134 (19.8%) were classified into group 1, 206 (30.4%) into group 2 and 337 (49.8%) into group 3. The most commonly identified CHDs were ventricular septal defects (21.3%), tetralogy of Fallot (10.5%), coarctations of the aorta (10.5%) and atrioventricular septal defects (9.5%) (Table 1). The screening rates per year were 69.2%, 68.2%, 82.9% and 71.1%, respectively, from 2014 to 2017.

Fig 2. Flow chart.

Fig 2

CHD: Congenital heart disease. TOP: Terminations of pregnancy; IUD: Intrauterine demises.

Table 1. Proportion of prenatal screening of congenital heart disease among the 3 groups.

CHD Prenatal diagnosis
n (%)
Postnatal diagnosis
n (%)
Total
n (%)
GROUP 1 
Left ventricle hypoplasia 52 (98.1) 1 (1.9) 53 (7.8)
Single ventricle 51 (98.1) 1 (1.9) 52 (7.7)
Tricuspid atresia 11 (100) 0 11 (1.6)
Complex cardiomyopathy 16 (94.1) 1 (5.9) 17 (2.5)
Endocardial fibroelastosis 1 (100) 0 1 (0.1)
Subtotal group 1 131 (97.8) 3 (2.2) 134 (19.8)
GROUP 2 
Transposition of the great arteries 42 (80.8) 10 (19.2) 52 (7.7)
Coarctation of the aorta 40 (56.3) 31 (43.7) 71 (10.5)
Aortic stenosis 6 (35.3) 11 (64.7) 17 (2.5)
Shone’s syndrome 0 1 (100) 1 (0.1)
PA-VSD 10 (83.3) 2 (16.7) 12 (1.8)
PA-IVS and critical pulmonary stenosis 14 (77.8) 4 (22.2) 18 (2.7)
Interruption of the aortic arch 2 (40) 3 (60) 5 (0.7)
Agenesis of the pulmonary valves 5 (100) 0 5 (0.7)
TAPVR § 3 (21.4) 11 (78.6) 14 (2.1)
Double aortic arch 9 (81.8) 2 (18.2) 11 (1.6)
Subtotal group 2 131 (63.6) 75 (36.4) 206 (30.4)
GROUP 3 
Atrioventricular septal defect 59 (92.2) 5 (7.8) 64 (9.5)
Tetralogy of Fallot  53 (74.6) 18 (25.4) 71 (10.5)
Common arterial trunk 7 (77.8) 2 (22.2) 9 (1.3)
Aortopulmonary window 0 2 (100) 2 (0.3)
Tricuspid valve dysplasia and Ebstein’s anomaly 11 (91.7) 1 (8.3) 12 (1.8)
Double discordance 4 (100) 0 4 (0.8)
Tight pulmonary stenosis 6 (28.6) 15 (71.4) 21 (3.1)
Ventricular septal defect 73 (50.7) 71 (49.3) 144 (21.3)
Heart tumour 7 (100) 0 7 (1)
Anomaly of the origin of the PA 1 (50) 1 (50) 2 (0.3)
Aneurysm of the right ventricle 1 (100) 0 1 (0.1)
Subtotal group 3 222 (65.9) 115 (34.1) 337 (49.8)
Total 484 (71.5) 193 (28.5) 677 (100)

† Pulmonary atresia with a ventricular septal defect.

‡ Pulmonary atresia with an intact ventricular septum.

§ Total anomalous pulmonary venous return.

¶ PA: pulmonary arteries

Prenatal screening

A total of 484 CHD cases were identified in the prenatal period, with an overall prenatal detection rate of 71.5%. The detection rate after excluding ventricular septal defects was 77.1%. The detection rates for each CHD studied are described in Table 1. The proportion of CHD cases detected in utero varied by group, with a detection rate of 97.8% in group 1, 63.6% in group 2 and 65.9% in group 3 (Table 1). The average gestational age upon diagnosis of CHD in prenatal cases was 23.7 weeks of gestation (+/- 5.4). A total of 76.6% of CHD cases diagnosed in the prenatal period were detected in the second trimester of pregnancy, 18.3% were detected during the third trimester. In our study, only 5.1% of CHDs were diagnosed in the first trimester. Among the 25 CHDs diagnosed in the first trimester, thirteen were from group 1, one from group 2, eleven from group 3. Regarding the outcome of these pregnancies: eighteen TOPs were performed at an average gestational age 16.2 weeks, three IUDs were observed, and four children were born and had surgery.

Postnatal screening

In total, 28.5% CHD cases were not identified in the prenatal period (N = 193). A total of 57.5% of these cases were discovered in the first week of life. The median age at diagnosis, all cases taken together, was 5 days (2–30). The median age at diagnosis was 1 day (1–90), 4 days (1–18) and 7.5 days (3–30) for cases in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Polymalformative syndromes and genetic anomalies

Amongst the 677 CHD cases identified, PMS was found in 21.8% of cases (N = 148) and a genetic anomaly was detected in 16.1% of cases (N = 109). PMS and genetic anomalies were more common in group 3 (65.5% and 70.6%, respectively). The rates of PMS and genetic anomalies were significantly higher in cases of prenatal diagnosis than in cases of postnatal diagnosis (24.8% versus 14.5%; p < 0.05 and 18% versus 11%; p < 0.05, respectively). These differences were particularly significant for group 3 (33.8% versus 19.1%; p < 0.05 for PMS and 27% versus 14.8%; p < 0.05 for genetic abnormalities). The main genetic anomalies identified were trisomy 21 (35.7%), trisomy 18 (19.5%) and microdeletion 22Q11 (15.6%). The other anomalies found were trisomy 13, triploidy, deletion chromosome 4,5,6,7,8,10, 17,18, Turner syndrome, duplication chromosome X, duplication chromosome 8, partial trisomy chromosome 11 and 22.

Outcomes

Evolution of the pregnancies in cases of prenatal screening (Table 2)

Table 2. Outcome of pregnancies with congenital heart disease according to a prenatal diagnosis.
  Group 1 N (%) Group 2 N (%) Group 3 N (%) Total N (%)
Live births 46 (35.1) 112 (85.5) 151 (68) 309 (63.8)
TOP 74 (56.5) 17 (13) 67 (30.2) 158 (32.6)
GA at TOP 22.7 28.8 24.8 24.2
TOP Cause:
- Severity of CHD 64 (86.5) 12 (70.6) 15 (22.4) 91 (57.6)
- PMS 5 (6.8) 2 (11.8) 16 (23.9) 23 (14.6)
- Genetic anomaly § 5 (6.8) 3 (17.6) 36 (53.7) 44 (27.8)
Intrauterine demise 11 (8.4) 2 (1.5) 4 (1.8) 17 (3.6)
Total prenatal diagnosis 131(100) 131(100) 222 (100) 484 (100)

TOP = Termination of pregnancy; GA = Gestational age; PMS = Polymalformative syndrome

§ This term includes anomalies of the karyotype, anomalies of the CGH array and Mendelian genetic syndromes

Among the 484 CHD cases identified in the prenatal period, 309 (63.8%) pregnancies resulted in the birth of a living child. Seventeen (3.6%) cases of intrauterine demise were observed, and 158 (32.6%) cases resulted in a TOP. Of the 158 TOP cases, 74 (46.8%) were carried out for CHD cases in group 1, 17 (10.8%) for CHD cases in group 2 and 67 (42.4%) for CHD cases in group 3. The TOP procedures carried out for CHD cases in groups 1 and 2 were performed because of the severity of the CHD in 64 (86.5%) and 12 (70.6%) cases, respectively. For group 3, a TOP was carried out due to a genetic cause in 36 (53.7%) cases. An autopsy was performed in 35.4% of cases of TOPs and in 11.7% of cases of IUDs. Among the children borned alive with a CHD diagnosed prenatally, only thirteen diagnoses were reversed. These thirteen cases were prenatal suspicions of coarctation of the aorta that did not occur at birth. All other diagnosis were postnatally confirmed.

Outcomes for children with CHD (Table 3)

Table 3. Outcomes of children with congenital heart disease.
CHD with a prenatal diagnosis CHD without a prenatal diagnosis p
Group 1 N = 49 46 3
Hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit N(%) 43 (93,5) 2 (66.7) 0,230
Average duration of hospitalisation in intensive care (days) (± ET) 23 (± 31,3) 24 (± 31) NS
Deaths N (%) 25 (54.3) 1 (33.3) 0,594
Cause of death: cardiopathy 22 (88) 1 (100) 0.999
Death before surgery 11 (50) 1 (100) 0,999
Cause of death: other cause # 3 (12) 0 (0) 0.999
Group 2 N = 187 112 75
Hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit N(%) 103 (92) 61 (81,3) 0,01
Average duration of hospitalisation in intensive care (days) (± ET) 15.4 (±14,9) 15.1 (±11) NS
Deaths N (%) 12 (10,7) 3 (4) 0,109
Cause of death: cardiopathy 5 (41,7) 3 (100) 0,200
Death before surgery 4 (80) 2 (66.7) 0.999
Cause of death: other cause # 7 (58,3) 0 (0) 0,200
Group 3 N = 266 151 115
Hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit N(%) 53 (35,1) 19 (16.5) < 0.001
Average duration of hospitalisation in intensive care (days) (± ET) 18.6 (±27,2) 18.2 (±22,1) NS
Deaths N (%) 16 (10,6) 0 (0) < 0,001
Cause of death: cardiopathy 3 (18.8) 0 (0) NA
Death before surgery 3 (100) 0 NA
Cause of death: other cause # 13 (81.2) 0 (0) NA
Total population N = 502 309 193
Hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit N(%) 200 (64,7) 82 (42.5) < 0.001
Average duration of hospitalisation in intensive care (days) (± ET) 17.8 (±22,8) 15.9 (± 14,3) 0,051
Deaths N (%) 53 (17,2) 4 (2.1) < 0.001
Cause of death: cardiopathy 30 (56,6) 4 (100) 0,140
Death before surgery 17 (56.7) 3 (75) 0.627
Cause of death: other causes # 23 (43,4) 0 (0) 0,140

# Other causes of death: genetics anomalies, polymalformative syndrome, prematurity, infection

A total of 502 children were born with CHD. In 309 (61.5%) cases, the diagnosis was prenatal, and in 193 (38.5%) cases, the diagnosis was postnatal. Among the children borned alive with a CHD diagnosed prenatally, all the diagnosis were postnatally confirmed. Hospitalisation in neonatal intensive care was more often found in prenatal diagnosis cases than in postnatal diagnosis cases (64.7% versus 42.5%; p < 0,001). No significant difference was found in terms of hospitalisation duration in days (17.8 days versus 15.9 days; p = 0,051). Regarding mortality, 57 deaths were recorded in this study, representing 11.3% of live births. There was a significant difference in terms of neonatal mortality between the two groups, with a higher death rate in the group of children whose diagnosis was prenatal (17.2% versus 2.1%; p < 0.001). After excluding children who died for reasons other than CHD, there was no significant difference in terms of mortality in cases of pre- or postnatal diagnoses (56.6% versus 100%; p = 0,140). The same applies to the preoperative mortality of these children (56.7% versus 75%; p = 0,627).

Discussion

The overall prenatal detection rate for CHD is 71.5% in the southern region of France. This rate is similar to that found in the study led by Durand et al. in Haute-Normandie [7]. In 2005, Khoshnood et al. [6] reported a prenatal detection rate of 47.3% in the Paris area, and the EUROCAT study in 2009 [1] reported detection rates ranging from 1% (Malta) to 42.5% (France). In Europe, such differences between countries can be explained by unequal access to healthcare and by discrepancies in prenatal screening organisation policies. In France, this difference can be explained by the disparity in design between studies. In addition, improved detection rates could be explained by the evolving guidelines from the CNEOF (National Conference on Obstetrical and Fetal Ultrasound) and the French College of Foetal Sonography (CFEF), requiring three images of the foetal heart during ultrasounds performed in the second and third trimesters: the four cavities and the right and left ejection channels.

The prenatal diagnosis rate of the 3 groups of CHD varied considerably (97.8% in group 1, 63.6% in group 2 and 65.9% in group 3). In the study by Durand et al. [7], these rates were 93%, 53% and 77%, respectively. The high prenatal detection rate for the CHDs in group 1 can be explained by the significant disorganisation in cardiac architecture that they produce. Our study found rates comparable with those reported in the literature [6,16]. Among group 2, transposition of the great arteries (TGA) was detected in 80.8% of cases, which seems higher than the percentage in other studies (70%) [7,16,17]. However, one TGA out of 5 is not detected before birth, whereas this pathology requires specific neonatal management. It was proven by several studies that the diagnosis of TGA before birth improved the survival rates for these children [8,1820]. A total of 56.3% of coarctation of the aorta cases were detected before birth, which is a higher rate than that of other studies [16,21]. This is a very difficult CHD to detect in the prenatal period as it forms after birth. Some studies have suggested that some cases of aortic coarctation would never be detected in prenatal screening [21]. Total anomalous pulmonary venous return (TAPVR) is a rare CHD that is difficult to detect with prenatal screening [2224]. Our results reveal a low detection rate (20%), but it is higher than that of other studies [7,24]. Children with TAPVR are at risk of cardiac decompensation at birth in cases of a blocked TAPVR and require immediate surgical intervention. Among the CHDs associated with genetic risk, tetralogy of Fallot and common arterial truncus were prenatally identified in approximately 75% of cases and atrioventricular septal defects in more than 90% of cases. The detection rate for CHD seems high in Southern France but could be improved nevertheless. Some studies have demonstrated the value of training on the efficiency of prenatal heart disease screening [7,15].

The gestational age for a CHD diagnosis has improved since the 1980s, from approximately 27 to 23 weeks of gestation [6]. Before the 2000s, 35% of CHD cases were diagnosed in the third trimester [25]. In our study, 76.6% of CHD cases were detected in the second trimester, with an average gestational age of 23.7 weeks of gestation. In our study, 5.1% of CHDs were diagnosed in the first trimester. CNEOF and CFEF does not currently recommend performing image of fetal heart during ultrasound in the first trimester. To improve the rate of early diagnosis, ISUOG (International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology) recommends verifying the symmetry of the 4 cavities during ultrasound screening in the first trimester [26]. Some studies include a systematic foetal heart analysis in the first trimester ultrasound, making it possible to diagnose or suspect 90% of the most serious CHD cases and 42% of the more minor ones [27].

Our results show that 16.1% of CHD cases were associated with a genetic anomaly, a rate comparable with that stated in the study by Cohen et al. [14]. De Groote [28] found a higher rate (25–40%) of genetic anomalies in cases of severe CHD. The main genetic anomalies identified were trisomy 21 (35.7%), trisomy 18 (19.5%) and microdeletion 22Q11 (15.6%). This association shows the importance of a precise prenatal diagnosis of CHD to orient the genetic screening process not to overlook a genetic anomaly whose diagnosis could lead to a TOP upon maternal request. Our study showed that a TOP was executed in 32.6% of CHD cases with a prenatal diagnosis and an average gestational age of realisation for TOP of 24.2 weeks for gestation. In France, the law allows TOP to be performed at any time during pregnancy when the unborn child suffers from a disease of particular gravity recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis [29]. The CNGOF (French National College of Gynecology-obstetric) recommends carrying out a feticide in situations where the gestational age is advanced with a high probability that the child will be born alive without spontaneous death envisaged in short term [30]. For these reasons, an early diagnosis of CHD would make it possible to perform these TOPs earlier and avoid feticide. In our cohort, the average gestational age of TOP at diagnosis in the first trimester was 16.2 weeks. Among groups 1 and 2, the severity of the CHD motivated the TOP decision then almost in group 3, it was the presence of an associated genetic anomaly that motivated this request in 53.7% of cases. In children born with CHD, the death rate was 11.3%. Conversely, in other studies [31], our study did not show any benefit from a prenatal diagnosis in terms of mortality in children who died from their CHD or in terms of preoperative mortality. Certain studies [32,33] have demonstrated a reduction in the preoperative morbidity of these children in terms of preoperative ventilation, administration of antibiotics, and emergency surgery. However, these factors were not investigated in our study.

The present study has several limitations. Although this study covered a large population, 677 patients, the rarity of certain CHDs makes it difficult to interpret the results. Furthermore, only children with severe CHD requiring hospitalisation were included. Children who died in outlying maternity clinics and who were not diagnosed before birth could also not be identified. However, they potentially represent a smaller number of cases. Unfortunately, the retrospective design of our study did not allowed us to analyze the causes of screening failures (the quality of the screening ultrasound images, level and grade of the initial sonographer, maternal BMI, a lack of follow-up). This study did not allow us to measure the impact of a prenatal diagnosis on neonatal morbidity. Some studies have shown that a prenatal diagnosis enables the improvement of the neurocognitive prognosis of children with CHDs [8,34,35].

This study made it possible to carry out an inventory of the prenatal screening of CHDs in our region. An undergoing training programme for professionals in the region began with the objective of improving the accuracy of prenatal screening for specific CHDs. A new screening assessment will be conducted in our region after the end of these training programs, including patient characteristics, screening ultrasound images.

In conclusion, the detection rate for CHD appears to be globally satisfactory in Southern France. However, it remains perfectible for certain CHDs, particularly those in group 2 requiring adapted neonatal management and for conotruncal malformations in group 3 with a risk of genetic involvement. A training programme for professionals in the region actually in progress might improve the accuracy of prenatal screening for specific CHDs and will be further assessed.

Supporting information

S1 File. Transposition of the great arteries: The keys to screening.

VD: Right ventricle; VG: Left ventricle; OD: Right atrium; OG: left atrium; VP: Pulmonary vein; Ao: Aorta; AP: Pulmonary artery; VCS: superior vena cava.

(PDF)

S2 File. Total anomalous pulmonary venous returns: The keys to screening.

VD: Right ventricle; VG: Left ventricle; OD: Right atrium; OG: left atrium; VP: Pulmonary vein.

(PDF)

S3 File. Aorta coarctation: The keys to screening.

VD: Right ventricle; VG: Left ventricle; VP: Pulmonary vein; Ao: Aorta; AP: Pulmonary artery; VCS: superior vena cava.

(PDF)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank U. Agarwal and J. SL Lim for their critical reading of the manuscript, We wish to thank Réseau Méditerranée PACA-Corse-Monaco and all patients.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E. Congenital heart defects in Europe: Prevalence and perinatal mortality, 2000 to 2005. Circulation. 2011;123(8):841–9. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.958405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Van Der Linde D, Konings EEM, Slager MA, Witsenburg M, Helbing WA, Takkenberg JJM, et al. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;58(21):2241–7. 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Khoshnood B, Lelong N, Houyel L, Thieulin AC, Jouannic JM, Magnier S, et al. Prevalence, timing of diagnosis and mortality of newborns with congenital heart defects: A population-based study. Heart. 2012. November 15;98(22):1667–73. 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stoll C, Garne E, Clementi M. Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of associated congenital heart diseases by fetal ultrasonographic examination in Europe. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2001;21(4):243–52. 10.1002/pd.34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.INSERM/ DRESS. Enquête nationale périnatale Rapport 2016. 2017; Available from: http://www.xn—epop-inserm-ebb.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ENP2016_rapport_complet.pdf
  • 6.Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Vodovar V, Goujard J, Lhomme A, Bonnet D, et al. Trends in Prenatal Diagnosis, Pregnancy Termination, and Perinatal Mortality of Newborns With Congenital Heart Disease in France, 1983–2000: A Population-Based Evaluation. Pediatrics. 2005;115(1):95–101. 10.1542/peds.2004-0516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Durand I, David N, Blaysat G, Marguet C. Diagnosis of congenital heart disease in a nonselected population in Upper Normandy: retrospective study between 2003 and 2007. Archives de Pediatrie. 2009;16(5):409–16. 10.1016/j.arcped.2009.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Calderon J, Angeard N, Moutier S, Plumet MH, Jambaqué I, Bonnet D. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on neurocognitive outcomes in children with transposition of the great arteries. Journal of Pediatrics. 2012;161(1):94–9. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.12.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mahle WT, Clancy RR, McGaurn SP, Goin JE, Clark BJ, Bonnet D, et al. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on survival and early neurologic morbidity in neonates with the hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatrics. 2001. June 1;107(6):1277–82. 10.1542/peds.107.6.1277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Quartermain MD, Hill KD, Goldberg DJ, Jacobs JP, Jacobs ML, Pasquali SK, et al. Prenatal Diagnosis Influences Preoperative Status in Neonates with Congenital Heart Disease: An Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. Pediatric Cardiology. 2019. March 19;40(3):489–96. 10.1007/s00246-018-1995-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Calderon J, Angeard N, Moutier S, Plumet MH, Jambaqué I, Bonnet D. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on neurocognitive outcomes in children with transposition of the great arteries. Journal of Pediatrics. 2012. [cited 2018 May 30];161(1). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Clausen H. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2015;25(1):18–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.De Groote K, Vanhie E, Roets E, Ramaekers P, De Wilde H, Panzer J, et al. Outcome after prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of complex congenital heart defects and the influence of genetic anomalies. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2017;37(10):983–91. 10.1002/pd.5117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cohen S, Bajolle F. Épidémiologie, étiologie et génétique des cardiopathies congénitales. Cardiologie. 2016;12(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mcbrien A, Sands A, Craig B, Dornan J, Casey F. Impact of a regional training program in fetal echocardiography for sonographers on the antenatal detection of major congenital heart disease. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010;36(3):279–84. 10.1002/uog.7616 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khoshnood B, Lelong N, Houyel L, Bonnet D, Ballon M, Jouannic J-M, et al. Impact of prenatal diagnosis on survival of newborns with four congenital heart defects: a prospective, population-based cohort study in France (the EPICARD Study). BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e018285 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Vodovar V, Goujard J, Lhomme A, Bonnet D, et al. Trends in Prenatal Diagnosis, Pregnancy Termination, and Perinatal Mortality of Newborns With Congenital Heart Disease in France, 1983–2000: A Population-Based Evaluation. Pediatrics. 2005;115(1):95–101. 10.1542/peds.2004-0516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Blyth M, Howe D, Gnanapragasam J, Wellesley D. The hidden mortality of transposition of the great arteries and survival advantage provided by prenatal diagnosis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2008;115(9):1096–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bonnet D, Coltri A, Butera G, Fermont L, Le Bidois J, Kachaner J, et al. Detection of transposition of the great arteries in fetuses reduces neonatal morbidity and mortality. Circulation. 1999. February 23;99(7):916–8 10.1161/01.cir.99.7.916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Van Velzen CL, Haak MC, Reijnders G, Rijlaarsdam MEB, Bax CJ, Pajkrt E, et al. Prenatal detection of transposition of the great arteries reduces mortality and morbidity. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015;45(3):320–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Durand I, Deverriere G, Thill C, Lety AS, Parrod C, David N, et al. Prenatal Detection of Coarctation of the Aorta in a Non-selected Population: A Prospective Analysis of 10 Years of Experience. Pediatric Cardiology. 2015;36(6):1248–54. 10.1007/s00246-015-1153-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Muntean I, Mǎrginean C, Stanca R, Togǎnel R, Pop M, Gozar L. Prenatal diagnoses of an uncommon isolated obstructed supracardiac total anomalous pulmonary venous connection. Vol. 96, Medicine (United States). 2017. February;96(5)e6061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Allan LD, Sharland GK. The echocardiographic diagnosis of totally anomalous pulmonary venous connection in the fetus. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2001;85(4):433–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Laux D, Fermont L, Bajolle F, Boudjemline Y, Stirnemann J, Bonnet D. Prenatal diagnosis of isolated total anomalous pulmonary venous connection: a series of 10 cases. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013;41(3):291–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gascard-Battisti C., Dubois-Lebbe C., Chatelet-Cheront C., Ferrant L., A. Sales DH de l’Aulnoit. Dépistage anténatal des cardiopathies fœtales: une étude rétrospective sur 20 ans. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2006. 2006;35(cahier 1):472–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): sonographic screening examination of the fetal heart. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology; 2013; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Orlandi E, Rossi C, Perino A, Musicò G, Orlandi F. Simplified first-trimester fetal cardiac screening (four chamber view and ventricular outflow tracts) in a low-risk population. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2014;34(6):558–63. 10.1002/pd.4348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.De Groote K, Vanhie E, Roets E, Ramaekers P, De Wilde H, Panzer J, et al. Outcome after prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of complex congenital heart defects and the influence of genetic anomalies. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2017;37(10):983–91. 10.1002/pd.5117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Code de la santé publique—Article L2213-1 | Legifrance. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072665&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006687544&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid
  • 30.V. HOUFFLIN-DEBARGE PV. Interruption médicale de grossesse. Processus décisionnel et prise en charge COLLÈGE NATIONAL DES GYNÉCOLOGUES ET OBSTÉTRICIENS FRANÇAIS. 2008. Available from: http://www.cngof.asso.fr/d_livres/2008_GO_041_houfflin.pdf
  • 31.Holland BJ, Myers JA, Woods CR. Prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease reduces risk of death from cardiovascular compromise prior to planned neonatal cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015. June;45(6):631–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Landis BJ, Levey A, Levasseur SM, Glickstein JS, Kleinman CS, Simpson LL, et al. Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease and Birth Outcomes. Pediatr Cardiol. 2013;34(3):597–605. 10.1007/s00246-012-0504-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Levey A, Glickstein JS, Kleinman CS, Levasseur SM, Chen J, Gersony WM, et al. The Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis of Complex Congenital Heart Disease on Neonatal Outcomes. Pediatr Cardiol. 2010;31(5):587–97. 10.1007/s00246-010-9648-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Calderon J, Bonnet D, Courtin C, Concordet S, Plumet MH, Angeard N. Executive function and theory of mind in school-aged children after neonatal corrective cardiac surgery for transposition of the great arteries. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2010;52(12):1139–44. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03735.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Calderon J, Willaime M, Lelong N, Bonnet D, Houyel L, Ballon M, et al. Population-based study of cognitive outcomes in congenital heart defects. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2018;103(1):49–56. 10.1136/archdischild-2016-310830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrew Sharp

9 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-14787

Accuracy of prenatal screening for congenital heart disease in population: A retrospective study in Southern France between January 2014 and December 2017

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Suard,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please pay close attention to the reviewers comments attached especially with regard to giving greater clarity to the reader to understand local guidelines and practice

Please submit your revised manuscript by 1/07/2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrew Sharp, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

"This study received a favourable opinion from the Ethics Committee at the University of Aix-Marseille.

The CIL (Correspondant Informatique et Libertés) was made aware of the study complying with French law (reference: DSN_2018-07-27_7419)."

i) Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

ii) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Many thanks for your submission

please address the reviewers comments paying particular attention to providing greater clarity on how fetocide and screening is performed in France and what the CFEF guidelines dictate

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a retrospective study across 2 centres from south of France looking at prenatal screening accuracy rates from 2014-17. My comments are :

1. In title authors state that they wish to evaluate impact on 'pregnancy issues'. This however seems too broad and the article does not go into any specific pregnancy issues except the tabular outcomes. I would have expected 'maternal/obstetric' outcomes on reading 'pregnancy issues' as main objective. This does not seem to be remit of paper. Authors could perhaps clarify what issues they mean at outset

2. Fig 1 with legend seems to be placed inappropriately in text

3. Data collected from lines 148-152 reads duplicate

4. The indication for molecular screening (line 160-61) is not clearly interpretable the way it has been written

5. Reword amenorrhoea in line 319 to gestation or gestational age

6. Use 'gestation' in place of 'term' in text

7. The average gestation for TOP was 24.2 weeks. Authors state that earlier diagnosis allowed doing TOP without fetocide (line 319-20). This is in stark contrast to UK practice where fetocide cut off is 21+6 weeks. Can authors please explain the fetocide process and its cut off ?

8. Line 254- I think 'morbidity' should read as 'mortality'

9. Table 2- Intrauterin should read as Intrauterine

10. The discussion raises further questions, which occur intutively to mind of the reader

a) What was outcome for 5.1% cases that were detected during the first trimester , authors do not discuss this further in discussion. What were these cases are were these in a specific centre using a specific algorithm like ISUOG paper that authors quote? Were these in Group 1,2 or 3 ?

b) For TOPs and IUDs was there any postmortem data ?

c) For the prenatally detected lesions, what was the 'concordance rates' on postnatal diagnosis ? Were any diagnoses revised from Group 2 to 3 or vice versa after postnatal period

d) Authors do not report on Right aortic arch which is far common condition that double arch, was this not recorded ?

e) Do they mean AVSD ( partial and/or total ) when they say AV Canal ?

f) They say tight pulmonary stenosis is unlikely to need immediate neonatal cardiac input. Why such a case is not likely to need emergency PV dilatation or stent ? Should this not be Group 2?

g) What were the other genetic conditions detected on microarray apart from the 3 they mention

h) I would like to see the 'screening algorithm' used in two centres- was it same or different ? Did the authors compare the detection rates between two centres and if one was better than the other?

i) The skill, level and grade of person doing the screening needs some discussion- was this sonographer,general obstetrician with interest in ultrasound, fetal medicine sub-specialist or fetal cardiologist ? The missed cases in Group 1, were the prenatal images checked on the 3 scans these women would have had ?

j) Was maternal BMI looked at in relation to anomalies that were missed or were only diagnosed after birth ? This data would be there in viewpoint and should be extractable

k) What is the relevance of p value in Table 2 ? Which groups are being compared and discussion could be expanded to cover this section.

The overall level of discussion needs improving. At present it mostly reads as tables that have been padded out in sentences.

It does not reflect the 'critical thinking' behind why work was done, how it changed anything at the place of study and what needs to be done to make things better. A section on what is known and what the study adds also should be added.

There is hint of French English style of writing, the chief editor should decide if this is acceptable.

Reviewer #2: Overall good review of impressive database (covers whole of Southern France) with no previous similar publication for the same population.

1. I struggled to ascertain the screening protocol for this study. On lines 284 to 286, the author mentions that they use the French College of Foetal Sonography (CFEF) criteria which includes four cavities and the right and left ejection channels. Later on lines 308-310, the author mentions ISUOG guidelines. I was unable to find the actual CFEF cardiac screening guidelines, although there was a reference to the guidelines in a publication (https://www.cfef.org/fichiers/EF0501.pdf) with one reference cited in French.

It would be interesting to know when these guidelines were used from, and if there are any changes in the guidelines. It is remarkable that the antental detection rate for outflow tract anomalies are significantly higher than those published in the UK, despite less strict criteria used (ie no 3VT or 3VV views used). One wonders if the French sonographers are better trained than UK sonographers?

2. One of the references (nos 2 with reference to a EUROCAT review on CHD) has been incorrectly referenced. I could not access the page according to the webpage address given. It should have been referenced as a Circulation 2011;123:841-849 article.

3. In table 3 (outcomes of children with CHD), there were data on death before surgery. It is unclear if it is death due to cardiac issues before the surgery or death as a result of compassionate care.

Overall good review of data.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Umber Agarwal

Reviewer #2: Yes: Joyce SL Lim

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 5;15(10):e0239476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239476.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Jul 2020

Response to Reviewers

Dear Doctor Agarwal and Doctor Lim,

Please find below our answers to each reviewers’ questions and comments regarding the manuscript of our latest article entitled ‘Accuracy of prenatal screening for congenital heart disease in population: A retrospective study in Southern France’. We are grateful to have the opportunity to submit this new and revised version of the manuscript. We carefully read Reviewers’ comments and attempted to answer each of them.

Please find enclosed the revised and the point to point answer.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer #1:

The authors present a retrospective study across 2 centres from south of France looking at prenatal screening accuracy rates from 2014-17. My comments are :

1. In title authors state that they wish to evaluate impact on 'pregnancy issues'. This however seems too broad and the article does not go into any specific pregnancy issues except the tabular outcomes. I would have expected 'maternal/obstetric' outcomes on reading 'pregnancy issues' as main objective. This does not seem to be remit of paper. Authors could perhaps clarify what issues they mean at outset

We agree with this comment. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) on whether or not pregnancy continues depending on the severity of CHD. The objective is not to assess the obstetric impact of these fetal malformations diagnosis.

Thus, the term “issue” has been replaced by the term “outcome” to clarify.

Lines 40, 79

2. Fig 1 with legend seems to be placed inappropriately in text

Thank you for this remark. The reference to the figure 1 has been moved to line 102.

3. Data collected from lines 148-152 reads duplicate

May I ask that you re-confirm that the duplicate data ‘lines 148-152’ was:

‘In cases of a postnatal diagnosis, the parameters studied were the age at the time of diagnosis and the discovery of an associated PMS or genetic anomaly. For all children born with CHD, the following data were collected: the requirement for hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit and the duration in number of days, the existence of PMS or an associated genetic anomaly, and the occurrence of death.’

4. The indication for molecular screening (line 160-61) is not clearly interpretable the way it has been written

Following your advice, the changes were made in the manuscript: Amniocentesis with karyotype or CGH array was proposed for all patient in case of prenatal diagnosis.

Lines 130-131.

5. Reword amenorrhoea in line 319 to gestation or gestational age

Thank you for this remark. Correction is made on line 293

6. Use 'gestation' in place of 'term' in text

All over the manuscript ‘gestational age’ used in place ‘term’. (lines 120, 177, 293, 306)

7. The average gestation for TOP was 24.2 weeks. Authors state that earlier diagnosis allowed doing TOP without fetocide (line 319-20). This is in stark contrast to UK practice where fetocide cut off is 21+6 weeks. Can authors please explain the fetocide process and its cut off ?

Thank you, this is very relevant. Therefore, tried to clarify and detail these different points in the text.

A) Line 319-320: “An early diagnosis of CHD made it possible to perform these TOPs earlier and avoid feticide”.

What we meant is that an early diagnosis of CHD would make it possible to perform a TOP earlier, which would allow us to avoid the realization of a feticide which can be difficult for the couple. The correction to the text was performed in lines 319-320.

In the text: “An early diagnosis of CHD would make it possible to perform these TOPs earlier and avoid feticide”.

B) Regarding the fetocide process and its cut off,

- According to French law of the public health code, article L2213-1: ‘Voluntary termination of pregnancy can, at any time, be practiced if two doctors members of a multidisciplinary medical team attest, after opinion, either that the continuation of pregnancy puts in serious danger the health woman, or that there is a strong probability that the unborn child is affected by a affection of a particular gravity recognized as incurable in time of diagnosis’.

- The CNGOF (French National College of Gynecology-Obstetric) therefore issued recommendations on 3.12.2008 on the management of these terminations depending on the gestational age. He recommends: ‘the feticide will be produced in situations where the gestational age is advanced with a high probability that the child will be born alive without spontaneous death envisaged in the short term. The gestational age of 24 weeks is used by most teams’.

- In France, most teams realizes a feticide for TOP from 22 weeks. We wanted to express that the early diagnosis of CHD allowed if the request was made by the couple to carry out an early TOP before 22 weeks which made it possible to avoid feticide.

In the manuscript, we modified the sentences to: ‘In France, the law allows TOP to be performed at any time of pregnancy when the unborn child suffers from a disease of particular severity recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis �29�. The CNGOF (French National College of Gynecology-obstetric) recommends carrying out a feticide in situations where the gestational age is advanced with a high probability that the child will be born alive without spontaneous death envisaged in short term �30�. For these reasons, an early diagnosis of CHD would make it possible to perform these TOPs earlier and avoid feticide’. Lines 305-312

8. Line 254- I think 'morbidity' should read as 'mortality'

Thank you for this remark. The term ‘morbidity’ has been replaced by the term ‘mortality’ in the line 242.

9. Table 2- Intrauterin should read as Intrauterine

The correction was made in the table 2.

10. The discussion raises further questions, which occur intutively to mind of the reader

a) What was outcome for 5.1% cases that were detected during the first trimester , authors do not discuss this further in discussion. What were these cases are were these in a specific centre using a specific algorithm like ISUOG paper that authors quote? Were these in Group 1,2 or 3 ?

The CNEOF (National Conference on Obstetrical and Fetal Ultrasound) and the CFEF (French College of Foetal Sonography) do not currently recommend performing image of fetal heart examination during first trimester screening ultrasound. All CHDs in this study were assessed in one of three Multidisciplinary Prenatal Diagnosis Centres applying recommendations of the CNEOF and CFEF for diagnostic ultrasound (http://www.cfef.org/archives/bricabrac/cnte-echodiag.pdf).

We understand early CHD diagnosis is a the goal, therefore we added in the manuscript the description of this subgroup:

In our study, only 5.1% of CHDs were diagnosed in the first trimester. Among the 25 CHDs diagnosed in the first trimester, 13 were from group 1, 1 from group 2, 11 from group 3. Regarding the outcome of these pregnancies: 18 TOPs were performed at an average gestational age 16.2 weeks, 3 IUDs were observed, and 4 children were born and had surgery.

Lines 190-183 in results section.

Lines 294 and 312 in discussion section.

b) For TOPs and IUDs was there any postmortem data ?

We have recorded whether an autopsy had been performed. The correlation between prenatal diagnosis and autopsy was not the objective of the present study. An autopsy was performed in 35.4% of cases of TOPs and in 11.7% of cases of IUDs.

Thank you for your comment, this was add in the result section. Lines 208-209

c) For the prenatally detected lesions, what was the 'concordance rates' on postnatal diagnosis ? Were any diagnoses revised from Group 2 to 3 or vice versa after postnatal period

Among the children borned alive with a CHD diagnosed prenatally, only thirteen diagnoses were reversed. These thirteen cases were prenatal suspicions of coarctation of the aorta that did not occur at birth. All other diagnosis were postnatally confirmed.

Thus, no CHDs from Group 2 to 3 or vice versa were revised after postnatal period.

Thank you for your comment, this was add in the result section. Lines 209-211

d) Authors do not report on Right aortic arch which is far common condition that double arch, was this not recorded ?

It’s true that, right aortic arch is more common than double one. For the study right aortic arch was considered as an anatomic variation if isolated. The right aortic arch were not recorded into this study.

e) Do they mean AVSD ( partial and/or total ) when they say AV Canal ?

Thank you for this remark.

Yes, we mean ‘atrioventricual septal defect’ when we used ‘atrioventricular canal’

We have correct this term in the text (line 181, Table 1, line 302)

f) They say tight pulmonary stenosis is unlikely to need immediate neonatal cardiac input. Why such a case is not likely to need emergency PV dilatation or stent ? Should this not be Group 2?

Tight pulmonary stenosis has been classified as group 3. When they were classified as critical pulmonary stenosis with risk of urgent neonatal management, they were classified in group 2 as shown in figure and table 1.

g) What were the other genetic conditions detected on microarray apart from the 3 they mention?

The most frequently found genetic anomalies were trisomy 18, 21 and microdeletion 22q11 (197-199). The other anomalies found were trisomy 13, triploidy, deletion chromosome 4,5,6,7,8,10, 17,18, Turner syndrome, duplication chromosome X, duplication chromosome 8, partial trisomy chromosome 11 and 22.

h) I would like to see the 'screening algorithm' used in two centres- was it same or different ? Did the authors compare the detection rates between two centres and if one was better than the other?

In 2 centers, screening algorithm were the same (CNEOF and CFEF recommendations). The data were analyzed from the medical records in the same way.

We recorded all the fetuses expertized in the MPCDs and all the children under the age of one having been hospitalized in the cardiology departments of the UTHs of Nice and Marseille.

We did not intend to compare the two centers because the objective of this study was to evaluate the overall regional screening of CHDs. In addition, there is a common perinatal network in our region (Mediterranean network: PACA-Corsica-Monaco) which organized common training courses for the sonographers of the region allowing a homogenization of practices.

The center detection rate was not available because Marseille is the surgical CHD reference center and in case of postnatal diagnosis children can be referred from the whole region. Thus was not calculated this rate by center.

To clarified our results, you will find above the modified study flow chart (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Flow chart

i) The skill, level and grade of person doing the screening needs some discussion- was this sonographer, general obstetrician with interest in ultrasound, fetal medicine sub-specialist or fetal cardiologist ? The missed cases in Group 1, were the prenatal images checked on the 3 scans these women would have had ?

A) Due to the retrospective nature of this study, we were unable to collect the level and grade of the initial sonographer (Midwife, radiologist, medical gynecologist, obstetrician gynecologist). Once referred one of the three MPDCs all the CHDs were always assessed by an ultrasound specialist in fetal medicine and by a cardiopediatrician.

B) No, unfortunately in case of post natal diagnosis we didn’t have access to ultrasound images. As our study was retrospective at the beginning of it, we try to collect the screenind images but it was not possible. Thus this very interesting data is missing, we add this limitation in the discussion section. Lines 324-326….

‘Unfortunately, the retrospective design of our study did not allowed us to analyze the cause of screening failures (the quality of the screening ultrasound images, level and grade of the initial sonographer, maternal BMI, a lack of follow-up).’

j) Was maternal BMI looked at in relation to anomalies that were missed or were only diagnosed after birth ? This data would be there in viewpoint and should be extractable

In the same way as you, we wanted to study the impact of a high BMI on screening failure. Unfortunately this data was too rarely entered in our software to be usable on all data.

k) What is the relevance of p value in Table 2 ? Which groups are being compared and discussion could be expanded to cover this section.

Thank you for your useful comment. Table 2 is a descriptive table of pregnancy outcomes in case of prenatal diagnosis and not a comparison table. The p value has therefore been deleted for less confusion.

The overall level of discussion needs improving. At present it mostly reads as tables that have been padded out in sentences.

It does not reflect the 'critical thinking' behind why work was done, how it changed anything at the place of study and what needs to be done to make things better. A section on what is known and what the study adds also should be added.

Based on your advice, we have improved the discussion. We have completed the limitations of the study. We have also completed the impact of this study on the implementation of training programs in our region to improve the screening of CHDs. Lines 329-332

There is hint of French English style of writing, the chief editor should decide if this is acceptable.

We have had the whole article translated and corrected twice. Invoices for these translations are sent to the publisher.

Reviewer #2:

Overall good review of impressive database (covers whole of Southern France) with no previous similar publication for the same population.

1. I struggled to ascertain the screening protocol for this study.

On lines 284 to 286, the author mentions that they use the French College of Foetal Sonography (CFEF) criteria which includes four cavities and the right and left ejection channels. Later on lines 308-310, the author mentions ISUOG guidelines. I was unable to find the actual CFEF cardiac screening guidelines, although there was a reference to the guidelines in a publication (https://www.cfef.org/fichiers/EF0501.pdf) with one reference cited in French.

It would be interesting to know when these guidelines were used from, and if there are any changes in the guidelines.

It is remarkable that the antenatal detection rate for outflow tract anomalies are significantly higher than those published in the UK, despite less strict criteria used (ie no 3VT or 3VV views used). One wonders if the French sonographers are better trained than UK sonographers?

Thank you very much for these pertinent comments.

- Screening protocol:

Following your remarks we have modified the flow chart of the study for more clarity (Fig 2) .

We counted for this purpose all the fetuses expertized in the MPCDs and all the children under the age of one having been hospitalized in the cardiology departments of the UTHs of Nice and Marseille.

Figure 2. Flow chart

- Indeed, the CNEOF and the CFEF currently recommends in France to carry out images of four cavities as well as the right and left ejection channels during the second and third trimester ultrasound. These recommendations are not found with regard to the first trimester screening ultrasound. This is why we later quote the ISUOG guidelines which proposed these recommendations in the first trimester.

lines 294-295.

- We will send you the link for the CFEF 2016 guideline on screening ultrasound: www.cfef.org/archives/bricabrac/cneof/compte-renducneof2016.pdf

- We don't know why our screening rates appear to be higher than those published in the UK. Perhaps there is a difference in terms of the number of screening ultrasounds recommended? The 3VV cut is indeed most often performed in daily screening practice. However, it is included in our recommendations for diagnostic ultrasound, not screening ultrasound.

2. One of the references (nos 2 with reference to a EUROCAT review on CHD) has been incorrectly referenced. I could not access the page according to the webpage address given. It should have been referenced as a Circulation 2011;123:841-849 article.

Thank you for this comment. This error has been corrected

3. In table 3 (outcomes of children with CHD), there were data on death before surgery. It is unclear if it is death due to cardiac issues before the surgery or death as a result of compassionate care.

It’s true that these two situations have not been differentiated. Deaths secondary to CHDs in groups 2 and 3 occurred before curative surgery was performed with no initial compassionate care. For the CHDs in group 1, this information is not available in case of death before than palliative surgery was envisaged.

Overall good review of data.

We are very grateful for the opportunity to improve our manuscript.

The Authors.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Decision Letter 1

Andrew Sharp

7 Sep 2020

Accuracy of prenatal screening for congenital heart disease in population: A retrospective study in Southern France

PONE-D-20-14787R1

Dear Dr. Suard,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrew Sharp, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

please correct the spelling of Truncus as mentioned in the second review

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am grateful to authors for a detailed revision of their manuscript and addressing all our concerns. The manuscript is now looking very good and is of high quality and with clear messages. I am very pleased

One final spelling mistake to be corrected - troncus should be replaced with truncus !

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mr Umber Agarwal

Acceptance letter

Andrew Sharp

14 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-14787R1

Accuracy of prenatal screening for congenital heart disease in population: A retrospective study in Southern France

Dear Dr. SUARD:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrew Sharp

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Transposition of the great arteries: The keys to screening.

    VD: Right ventricle; VG: Left ventricle; OD: Right atrium; OG: left atrium; VP: Pulmonary vein; Ao: Aorta; AP: Pulmonary artery; VCS: superior vena cava.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Total anomalous pulmonary venous returns: The keys to screening.

    VD: Right ventricle; VG: Left ventricle; OD: Right atrium; OG: left atrium; VP: Pulmonary vein.

    (PDF)

    S3 File. Aorta coarctation: The keys to screening.

    VD: Right ventricle; VG: Left ventricle; VP: Pulmonary vein; Ao: Aorta; AP: Pulmonary artery; VCS: superior vena cava.

    (PDF)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES