Advertisement

Ethical Considerations in the Transcatheter Management of Congenital Heart Disease

  • David NykanenEmail author
Chapter
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Invasive treatment of congenital heart disease has seen remarkable advances over the past 80 years. With the advent of less invasive therapeutic strategic options, providers include interventional cardiologists as well as classically trained surgeons. The technological imperative for pursuing innovative therapy must be tempered by on-going observation. Outcomes research is problematic owing to the relative infrequency of like patients on the spectrum of any given condition. By necessity industry has also had a large influence on the development of surgical equipment and implantable devices thus creating the potential for real or perceived conflict of interest. A cooperative approach and transparency with respect to expected risks, benefits and alternatives are necessary to ensure informed consent central to the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

Keywords

Pediatric interventional cardiology Outcomes research Conflict of interest Informed consent Innovative therapy 

References

  1. 1.
    Wendler D. The ethics of pediatric research. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blalock A. The use of shunt or by-pass operations in the treatment of certain circulatory disorders, including portal hypertension and pulmonic stenosis. Ann Surg. 1947;125(2):129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dodge-Khatami A, Mavroudis C, Mavroudis CD, Jacobs JP. Past, present, and future of the arterial switch operation: historical review. Cardiol Young. 2012;22(6):724–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ohye RG, Sleeper LA, Mahony L, Newburger JW, Pearson GD, Lu M, et al. Comparison of shunt types in the Norwood procedure for single-ventricle lesions. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1980–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKneally MF. Ethical problems in surgery: innovation leading to unforeseen complications. World J Surg. 1999;23(8):786–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller FG. Ethical issues in surgical research. Thorac Surg Clin. 2005;15(4):543–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reitsma AM, Moreno JD. Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194(6):792–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rashkind WJ. Atrial septostomy in congenital heart disease. Adv Pediatr Infect Dis. 1969;16:211–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mullins CE. History of pediatric interventional catheterization: pediatric therapeutic cardiac catheterizations. Pediatr Cardiol. 1998;19(1):3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;297(5):480–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(8):573–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burke RP, Hannan RL. Reducing the trauma of congenital heart surgery. Surg Clin N Am. 2000;80(5):1593–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Podrid PJ, Graboys TB, Lown B. Prognosis of medically treated patients with coronary-artery disease with profound ST-segment depression during exercise testing. N Engl J Med. 1981;305(19):1111–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stergiopoulos K, Brown DL. Initial coronary stent implantation with medical therapy vs medical therapy alone for stable coronary artery disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(4):312–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan PS, Patel MR, Klein LW, Krone RJ, Dehmer GJ, Kennedy K, et al. Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;306(1):53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li JS, Eisenstein EL, Grabowski HG, Reid ED, Mangum B, Schulman KA, et al. Economic return of clinical trials performed under the pediatric exclusivity program. JAMA. 2007;297(5):480–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thaler DE, Saver JL. Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2008;23(6):537–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergersen L, Gauvreau K, Foerster SR, Marshall AC, McElhinney DB, Beekman RH, et al. Catheterization for congenital heart disease adjustment for risk method (CHARM). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(9):1037–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cevallos PC, Rose MJ, Armsby LB, Armstrong AK, El-Said H, Foerster SR, et al. Implementation of methodology for quality improvement in pediatric cardiac catheterization: a multi-center initiative by the congenital cardiac catheterization project on outcomes-quality improvement (C3PO-QI). Pediatr Cardiol. 2016;37(8):1436–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holzer RJ, Gauvreau K, Kreutzer J, Moore JW, McElhinney DB, Bergersen L. Relationship between procedural adverse events associated with cardiac catheterization for congenital heart disease and operator factors: results of a multi-institutional registry (C3PO). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(3):463–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hill KD, Du W, Fleming GA, Forbes TJ, Nykanen DG, Reeves J, et al. Validation and refinement of the catheterization RISk score for pediatrics (CRISP score): an analysis from the congenital cardiac interventional study consortium. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(1):97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nykanen DG, Forbes TJ, Du W, Divekar AA, Reeves JH, Hagler DJ, et al. CRISP: catheterization risk score for pediatrics: a report from the congenital cardiac interventional study consortium (CCISC). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87(2):302–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taggart NW, Du W, Forbes TJ, Nykanen DG, Wax DF, Cabalka AK, et al. A model for assessment of catheterization risk in adults with congenital heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2019;149:172–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Welke KF, O’Brien SM, Peterson ED, Ungerleider RM, Jacobs ML, Jacobs JP. The complex relationship between pediatric cardiac surgical case volumes and mortality rates in a national clinical database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(5):1133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Connors RC, Doty JR, Bull DA, May HT, Fullerton DA, Robbins RC. Effect of work-hour restriction on operative experience in cardiothoracic surgical residency training. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(3):710–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kan JS, White RI Jr, Mitchell SE, Gardner TJ. Percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty: a new method for treating congenital pulmonary-valve stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1982;307(9):540–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gross RE. Surgical management of the patent ductus arteriosus: with summary of four surgically treated cases. Ann Surg. 1939;110(3):321–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Conrad C, Newberry D. Understanding the pathophysiology, implications, and treatment options of patent ductus arteriosus in the neonatal population. Adv Neonatal Care. 2019;19(3):179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sathanandam S, Agrawal H, Chilakala S, Johnson J, Allen K, Knott-Craig C, et al. Can transcatheter PDA closure be performed in neonates ≤1000 grams? The memphis experience. Congenit Heart Dis. 2019;14(1):79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Heart CenterArnold Palmer Hospital for ChildrenOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Arnold Palmer Medical Center Institutional Review BoardOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsThe University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations