CCATClinical Analysis Tool
‹ Knowledge base

Browse the corpus

Walk the evidence base by book and chapter — the raw source passages that ground Ask, Differential, and the rest.

1 passage

abstractpubmed· Abstract 2021· item PMID:34561266

Cognitive and Executive Function in Congenital Heart Disease: A Meta-analysis. CONTEXT: Cognitive function and executive function (EF) impairments contribute to the long-term burden of congenital heart disease (CHD). However, the degree and profile of impairments are insufficiently described. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyze the evidence on cognitive function and EF outcomes in school-aged children operated for CHD and identify the risk factors for an unfavorable outcome. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION: Original peer-reviewed studies reporting cognitive or EF outcome in 5- to 17-year old children with CHD after cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. DATA EXTRACTION: Results of IQ and EF assessments were extracted, and estimates were transformed to means and SE. Standardized mean differences were calculated for comparison with healthy controls. RESULTS: Among 74 studies (3645 children with CHD) reporting total IQ, the summary estimate was 96.03 (95% confidence interval: 94.91 to 97.14). Hypoplastic left heart syndrome and univentricular CHD cohorts performed significantly worse than atrial and ventricular septum defect cohorts (P = .0003; P = .027). An older age at assessment was associated with lower IQ scores in cohorts with transposition of the great arteries (P = .014). Among 13 studies (774 children with CHD) reporting EF compared with controls, the standardized mean difference was -0.56 (95% confidence interval: -0.65 to -0.46) with no predilection for a specific EF domain or age effect. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity between studies was large. CONCLUSIONS: Intellectual impairments in CHD are frequent, with severity and trajectory depending on the CHD subtype. EF performance is poorer in children with CHD without a specific EF profile. The heterogeneity in studied populations and applied assessments is large. A uniform testing guideline is urgently needed.