Skip to main content
Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease logoLink to Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
editorial
. 2022 Jan 11;11(2):e023807. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.023807

Understanding the Maternal‐Fetal Environment and the Birth of Prenatal Pediatrics

Catherine Limperopoulos 1,2,5, David L Wessel 2,3,4,, Adre J du Plessis 2,5
PMCID: PMC9238530  PMID: 35014863

In this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), investigators from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, one of the leading centers for fetal medicine, pediatric cardiology, and cardiac surgery, extend their investigation into the factors associated with adverse outcome in children with critical congenital heart disease (CHD). 1 In their article, 2 Savla et al report on a retrospective cohort study that examines the association between prenatal factors in the maternal‐fetal environment and mortality after the stage 1 Norwood procedure in children with single‐ventricle cardiac lesions. In recent years it has become increasingly recognized that population‐based predictors of outcome in these children fail to account for much of the variability in individual patient‐based outcomes. This in turn, has triggered a growing interest in factors other than those traditionally considered in risk modeling, such as the anatomic nature of the heart lesion and the specifics of surgical repair and postoperative care. The current study enters into the risk model maternal‐placental‐fetal factors heretofore rarely considered, such as maternal lifestyle exposures (smoking), maternal illness (diabetes, hypertension), and abnormal placentation (preeclampsia).

The outcome of complex CHD is likely a result of complex genetic and environmental factors. Advances in genetic diagnostic techniques have expanded our understanding of the genomic underpinnings of CHD, both syndromic and nonsyndromic, and the role of epigenetic mechanisms that mediate changes in gene expression has helped explain the interaction between the genome and the environment. The pathways to morbidity and mortality for individuals with critical CHD are complex and multifactorial and may include cumulative insults (or multiple “hits”), both iatrogenic (eg, procedural‐based treatments) and natural. The advent of neonatal corrective and palliative cardiac surgery, enabled by cardiopulmonary bypass, therapeutic hypothermia, and circulatory arrest, led to a significant decrease in mortality of infants with complex CHD. Although subsequent outcomes for overall CHD have improved, the mortality rates of certain subtypes of CHD have remained stubbornly stable in recent years, including those with a single‐ventricle physiology (including hypoplastic left heart syndrome), 3 with one third of affected children dying before age 6 years. Given the extreme physiologic conditions during neonatal cardiac surgery (hypoperfusion, hypothermia), it was logical that earlier research into the outcomes of neonatal CHD repair focused primarily on the surgical and intraoperative support techniques, as well as postoperative care. Around the turn of the millennium reports began to appear implicating preoperative and even prenatal factors in the outcomes, primarily neurodevelopmental, 4 , 5 , 6 of infants with CHD. Around the same time, David Barker and colleagues 7 , 8 were advancing the hypothesis that early life, including prenatal, environmental exposures triggered fetal patterning events that determined subsequent resilience or vulnerability to adversity. The growing recognition of the complexity of the fetal experience and multifactorial influences that play a role in long‐term health and disease became known as the “developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis.” The fact that the fetal experience is inextricably linked to that of the pregnant mother, during a highly “plastic” period of rapid fetal development, supports the inclusion of maternal‐fetal environmental factors in models of risk in CHD.

The role of the placenta in the development of CHD and its outcome has become an area of increasing interest. 9 , 10 Savla et al 2 included preeclampsia, a complication of impaired placentation, as an environmental variable in their risk model. The rationale for this is several‐fold as there are a number of ways in which preeclampsia might be implicated in the causal pathway to adverse outcome in infants with critical CHD. First, disorders of placentation in general, and preeclampsia in particular, are strongly associated with fetal CHD, 10 , 11 with an increased risk of CHD associated with earlier‐onset preeclampsia, suggesting a dose‐timing or dose‐duration effect. 12 Remodeling of the spiral arteries is a critical element in normal placentation (and impaired in preeclampsia), events that occur in the first trimester concurrent with early development of the heart. Both the heart and placenta are highly vascular organs that develop under the influence of a complex balance of pro‐angiogenic and anti‐angiogenic vascular growth factors. 13 Reports have described an increase in placental abnormalities (both vascular and villous) in pregnancies complicated by CHD, based on pathology 14 and imaging studies. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 Late gestation fall‐off in fetal growth resembling late‐onset placental‐based fetal growth restriction has been observed in certain (but not all) CHD lesions. More concerning is the third trimester deceleration in fetal volumetric brain growth in the absence of obvious brain injury. 19 , 20 , 21 The causal direction of the association between the placental abnormalities and CHD remains unresolved with evidence to support a primary role for placental abnormality leading to CHD and vice versa (ie, disturbed placental circulation), as well as a bidirectional pathway.

Diabetes (pre‐ and gestational) is associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality, mediated by inflammatory cytokines, oxidative stress, and epigenetic pathways, among others. These injurious pathways have significant effects on the vascular endothelium of the fetus and placenta, with potential secondary placental failure. Pregestational diabetes is itself associated with increased risk of CHD, including impaired diastolic function or diabetic cardiomyopathy, even in the absence of major structural defects. Together, these widespread injurious influences could reasonably be expected to further increase the mortality risk of infants with critical CHD, as demonstrated by Savla et al. 2

In recent years maternal mental health disturbances have been identified as the most common complication of pregnancy, affecting more than 20% of women in the prenatal period or first postpartum year. This prevalence is almost doubled in high‐risk pregnancies such as those complicated by fetal CHD. 22 Of particular concern is the fact that these conditions are underdiagnosed and undertreated during pregnancy. Furthermore, the prenatal and perinatal risks of maternal toxic stress, anxiety, and depression during pregnancy are increasingly recognized and include spontaneous abortion, prematurity, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and neonatal mortality, as well as impaired brain development and long‐term neuropsychological deficits. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 The pathogenetic pathways invoked include activation and abnormal programming of the fetal hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal axis, as well the effects of elevated circulating cortisol and norepinephrine and inflammatory cytokines. The potential impact of these maternal mental health conditions on the outcome of high‐risk populations such as infants with CHD is in urgent need of investigation because in many cases these maternal conditions might be modifiable, even without medications. These findings again demonstrate the complex interaction between the fetal internal and maternal environments and brain development.

Future counseling and formulation of management plans for the high‐risk fetus and newborn should incorporate a broader panel of risk factors from the maternal, placental and fetal environments into the assessment than are currently considered. The multitude of potential risk factors add a daunting complexity to the challenge of identifying risks most hazardous to survival and well‐being. The approach taken by Savla et al 2 is logical as it starts with associated maternal‐placental factors known in general to be the best to start with additional factors that affect fetal well‐being. Looking ahead, this important line of inquiry needs to extend beyond survival (as a primary outcome) to elucidate the role of maternal‐placental influences on the long‐term health and wellness in survivors of CHD across the lifespan. Equally important will be careful consideration of not only the “gene‐code” and its relative contribution to outcomes in fetuses with CHD but the increasingly recognized role of the “ZIP code” and socioeconomic and racial disparities that may play a role in altered fetal programming. 27 Studies are needed to further disentangle the social determinants of health in this high‐risk population, and the role of stress, adversity, trauma, and resilience, to help guide future preventative educational strategies and targeted anticipatory prenatal interventions.

The article 2 by Savla et al underscores the need to consider the complex interactions between the maternal, placental, and fetal environments, especially in high‐risk fetal conditions, such as critical CHD. Developing precise and personalized care is a major “next frontier” for medicine, in general. As the field advances to more precise and personalized approaches to fetal counseling and formulation of management strategies, it will be increasingly important for greater collaboration between obstetricians and pediatricians. The emerging field of prenatal pediatrics focuses on developing greater expertise and understanding of the prenatal experience of infants arriving into pediatric care at birth. Developing such skills will be critical if pediatric specialists are to anticipate and navigate more successfully the prenatal‐postnatal transition of high‐risk fetuses, such as those with CHD. Anticipatory personalized care will be critically dependent on the development of more precise diagnostic and surveillance tools with which to interrogate the fetal condition and the intrauterine environment and to assess individual vulnerability and resilience. Rapid advances in genomic techniques, including the ability to better understand the environmental effects on gene expression through epigenetic signals, are likely to play an important role, as will the expanding portfolio of “omics” techniques. Based on the phenomenon of fetal‐maternal trafficking, distress signals from the fetus and placenta may become accessible from the maternal circulation, in the form of cell‐free fetal DNA, exosomes, and other subcellular elements. Ongoing development and refinement of in vivo fetal imaging techniques that offer composite structural, metabolic, and vascular signatures of maternal‐fetal‐placental unit health and wellness will further advance the precision with which fetal signals can become accessible and intelligible. This in turn will allow for more informed counseling and the delivery of personalized prenatal care for the maternal‐fetal dyad.

The lifespan consequences of events in the fetal and newborn period, particularly in high‐risk populations, make a greater understanding of the intrauterine, placental, maternal and external environmental experience during this critical developmental period a major priority. Without such advances the development of precision and personalized prenatal pediatrics will remain elusive. The observations and conclusions by Savla et al 2 further focus the need for pediatric subspecialists across many disciplines to join other perinatal experts and enter the emerging field of prenatal pediatrics. There is an opportunity and obligation to understand the impact of the maternal environment during pregnancy on the well‐being of the next generation.

Disclosures

None.

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.

For Disclosures, see page 3.

See Article by Savla et al.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Gaynor JW, Parry S, Moldenhauer JS, Simmons RA, Rychik J, Ittenbach RF, Russell WW, Zullo E, Ward JL, Nicolson SC, et al. The impact of the maternal‐foetal environment on outcomes of surgery for congenital heart disease in neonates. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;54:348–353. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Savla JJ, Putt ME, Huang J, Parry S, Moldenhauer JS, Reilly S, Youman O, Rychik J, Mercer‐Rosa L, Gaynor JW, et al. Impact of maternal‐fetal environment on mortality in children with single ventricle heart disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;10:e020299. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mascio CE, Irons ML, Ittenbach RF, Gaynor JW, Fuller SM, Kaplinski M, Kennedy AT, Steven JM, Nicolson SC, Spray TL. Thirty years and 1663 consecutive Norwood procedures: has survival plateaued? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158:220–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.12.117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Limperopoulos C, Majnemer A, Shevell MI, Rosenblatt B, Rohlicek C, Tchervenkov C. Neurologic status of newborns with congenital heart defects before open heart surgery. Pediatrics. 1999;103:402–408. doi: 10.1542/peds.103.2.402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Limperopoulos C, Majnemer A, Shevell MI, Rosenblatt B, Rohlicek C, Tchervenkov C. Neurodevelopmental status of newborns and infants with congenital heart defects before and after open heart surgery. J Pediatr. 2000;137:638–645. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2000.109152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Limperopoulos C, Majnemer A, Shevell MI, Rohlicek C, Rosenblatt B, Tchervenkov C, Darwish HZ. Predictors of developmental disabilities after open heart surgery in young children with congenital heart defects. J Pediatr. 2002;141:51–58. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2002.125227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Barker DJ. The intrauterine origins of cardiovascular disease. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1993;82(suppl 391):93–99; discussion 100. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1993.tb12938.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Barker DJ, Gluckman PD, Godfrey KM, Harding JE, Owens JA, Robinson JS. Fetal nutrition and cardiovascular disease in adult life. Lancet. 1993;341:938–941. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91224-A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Andescavage NN, Limperopoulos C. Placental abnormalities in congenital heart disease. Transl Pediatr. 2021;10:2148–2156. doi: 10.21037/tp-20-347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Cohen JA, Rychik J, Savla JJ. The placenta as the window to congenital heart disease. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021;36:56–60. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Brodwall K, Greve G, Oyen N. Preeclampsia and congenital heart defects. JAMA. 2016;315:1167–1168. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.19075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Auger N, Fraser WD, Healy‐Profitos J, Arbour L. Association between preeclampsia and congenital heart defects. JAMA. 2015;314:1588–1598. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Sliwa K. Tackling heart failure in Africa via innovative research: setting the agenda. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2992–2993. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Burton GJ, Jauniaux E. Development of the human placenta and fetal heart: synergic or independent? Front Physiol. 2018;9:373. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Andescavage N, Yarish A, Donofrio M, Bulas D, Evangelou I, Vezina G, McCarter R, duPlessis A, Limperopoulos C. 3‐D volumetric MRI evaluation of the placenta in fetuses with complex congenital heart disease. Placenta. 2015;36:1024–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2015.06.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Steinweg JK, Hui GTY, Pietsch M, Ho A, van Poppel MPM, Lloyd D, Colford K, Simpson JM, Razavi R, Pushparajah K, et al. T2* placental MRI in pregnancies complicated with fetal congenital heart disease. Placenta. 2021;108:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2021.02.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. You W, Andescavage NN, Kapse K, Donofrio MT, Jacobs M, Limperopoulos C. Hemodynamic responses of the placenta and brain to maternal hyperoxia in fetuses with congenital heart disease by using blood oxygen‐level dependent MRI. Radiology. 2020;294:141–148. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Zun Z, Zaharchuk G, Andescavage NN, Donofrio MT, Limperopoulos C. Non‐invasive placental perfusion imaging in pregnancies complicated by fetal heart disease using velocity‐selective arterial spin labeled MRI. Sci Rep. 2017;7:16126. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16461-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Limperopoulos C, Tworetzky W, McElhinney DB, Newburger JW, Brown DW, Robertson RL Jr, Guizard N, McGrath E, Geva J, Annese D, et al. Brain volume and metabolism in fetuses with congenital heart disease: evaluation with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Circulation. 2010;121:26–33. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.865568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Sun L, Macgowan CK, Sled JG, Yoo S‐J, Manlhiot C, Porayette P, Grosse‐Wortmann L, Jaeggi E, McCrindle BW, Kingdom J, et al. Reduced fetal cerebral oxygen consumption is associated with smaller brain size in fetuses with congenital heart disease. Circulation. 2015;131:1313–1323. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Clouchoux C, du Plessis AJ, Bouyssi‐Kobar M, Tworetzky W, McElhinney DB, Brown DW, Gholipour A, Kudelski D, Warfield SK, McCarter RJ, et al. Delayed cortical development in fetuses with complex congenital heart disease. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23:2932–2943. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Wu Y, Kapse K, Jacobs M, Niforatos‐Andescavage N, Donofrio MT, Krishnan A, Vezina G, Wessel D, du Plessis A, Limperopoulos C. Association of maternal psychological distress with in utero brain development in fetuses with congenital heart disease. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174:e195316. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Wu Y, Lu YC, Jacobs M, Pradhan S, Kapse K, Zhao L, Niforatos‐Andescavage N, Vezina G, du Plessis AJ, Limperopoulos C. Association of prenatal maternal psychological distress with fetal brain growth, metabolism, and cortical maturation. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e1919940. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Buss C, Entringer S, Swanson JM, Wadhwa PD. The role of stress in brain development: the gestational environment's long‐term effects on the brain. Cerebrum. 2012;2012:4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. De Asis‐Cruz J, Krishnamurthy D, Zhao L, Kapse K, Vezina G, Andescavage N, Quistorff J, Lopez C, Limperopoulos C. Association of prenatal maternal anxiety with fetal regional brain connectivity. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2022349. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Scheinost D, Spann MN, McDonough L, Peterson BS, Monk C. Associations between different dimensions of prenatal distress, neonatal hippocampal connectivity, and infant memory. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020;45:1272–1279. doi: 10.1038/s41386-020-0677-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Lu Y‐C, Kapse K, Andersen N, Quistorff J, Lopez C, Fry A, Cheng J, Andescavage N, Wu Y, Espinosa K, et al. Association between socioeconomic status and in utero fetal brain development. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e213526. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES