Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T03:35:00.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The origins and development of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative: creating innovative clinical, quality improvement, and research opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2020

Bradley S. Marino*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Erica Sood
Affiliation:
Nemours Cardiac Center, Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA Department of Pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Adam R. Cassidy
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Thomas A. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA
Jacqueline H. Sanz
Affiliation:
Division of Neuropsychology, Children’s National Hospital, Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences & Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
David Bellinger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Department of Neurology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Jane Newburger
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Caren S. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, C.S. Mott Childrens Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Bradley S. Marino, MD, MPP, MSCE, Professor Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Division of Cardiology, 225 East Chicago Avenue, Box 21, Chicago, IL 60611-2991, USA. Tel: +1 312 227 4373; Fax: 312-227-9640. E-mail: bradley.marino@northwestern.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Compared to the general population, individuals with complex congenital heart disease are at increased risk for deficits in cognitive, neurodevelopmental, psychosocial, and physical functioning, resulting in a diminished health-related quality of life. These deficits have been well described over the past 25 years, but significant gaps remain in our understanding of the best practices to improve neurodevelopmental and psychosocial outcomes and health-related quality of life for individuals with paediatric and congenital heart disease. Innovative clinical, quality improvement, and research opportunities with collaboration across multiple disciplines and institutions were needed to address these gaps. The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative was founded in 2016 with a described mission to determine and implement best practices of neurodevelopmental and psychosocial services for individuals and their families with paediatric and congenital heart disease through clinical, quality improvement, and research initiatives. The vision is to be a multi-centre, multi-national, multi-disciplinary group of healthcare professionals committed to working together and partnering with families to optimise neurodevelopmental outcomes for individuals with paediatric and congenital heart disease through clinical, quality, and research initiatives, intending to maximise quality of life for every individual across the lifespan. This manuscript describes the development and organisation of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Over the last several decades, advances in surgical techniques, intensive care, imaging, and medical therapies have dramatically lowered mortality rates for children with the most complex congenital heart disease.Reference Oster, Lee, Honein, Riehle-Colarusso, Shin and Correa1,Reference Triedman and Newburger2 Indeed, in 2010, over 1 million children and about 1.4 million adults were living with congenital heart disease in the United States alone, with nearly 300,000 having complex congenital heart disease.Reference Gilboa, Devine and Kucik3 Increased survival has allowed for the identification of a high prevalence of cognitive, neurodevelopmental, psychosocial, and physical functioning deficits that limit the resulting health-related quality of life of survivors with congenital heart disease.Reference Newburger, Wypij and Bellinger4Reference Marelli, Miller, Marino, Jefferson and Newburger9 Complex congenital heart disease and its treatments put the developing brain at tremendous risk for injury.Reference Triedman and Newburger2,Reference Newburger, Wypij and Bellinger4,Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger5,Reference Marelli, Miller, Marino, Jefferson and Newburger9Reference Marino13 In addition to brain maturation being slowed in many foetuses with congenital heart disease,Reference Clouchoux, du Plessis and Bouyssi-Kobar14,Reference Licht, Shera and Clancy15 children with complex congenital heart disease often require multiple surgeries and long hospitalisations. Acquired white matter injury with abnormal brain microstructure and connectivity is common.Reference McQuillen, Barkovich and Hamrick10,Reference Rivkin, Watson and Scoppettuolo16Reference Peyvandi, Chau and Guo21 Brain injury is often due to chronic or intermittent low oxygen levels in the brain, decreased brain blood flow from hypoperfusion and/or cardiac arrest, and/or reperfusion injury related to the medical and surgical therapies they have received.Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger5,Reference Marelli, Miller, Marino, Jefferson and Newburger9,Reference Lynch, Ko and Busch22Reference Andropoulos, Ahmad and Haq25

In addition, genetic contributors include associated congenital structural abnormalities of the brain as well as genetic factors associated with an increased risk for brain injury.Reference Rollins, Newburger and Roberts26,Reference Homsy, Zaidi and Shen27

Compared to the general population, children with complex congenital heart disease have a higher prevalence of deficits in intelligence, academic achievement, executive functioning, visual-motor integration, working memory, processing speed, attention and impulse control, language skills, social cognition, and fine and gross motor skills and a lower health-related quality of life.Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger5,Reference Marelli, Miller, Marino, Jefferson and Newburger9,Reference Gaynor, Wernovsky and Jarvik28Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Rivkin33 These difficulties may result in the child or adolescent with congenital heart disease having more behavioural and emotional problems, worse self-perception, social isolation, and school difficulties, as well as a greater need for academic, therapeutic, and psychosocial/psychiatric supports.Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger5,Reference Marelli, Miller, Marino, Jefferson and Newburger9,Reference Gerstle, Beebe, Drotar, Cassedy and Marino34Reference Luyckx, Goossens, Rassart, Apers, Vanhalst and Moons40 By adolescence, one-third to one-half of survivors of neonatal and infant surgery have required special services in school, 7–15% have been placed in substantially separate classrooms, and ~18% have repeated a grade.Reference Shillingford, Glanzman, Ittenbach, Clancy, Gaynor and Wernovsky30Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Rivkin33 With transition to adulthood, neurocognitive and behavioural disabilities can impact employability, the ability to form meaningful peer relationships, mental health, and health-related quality of life.Reference Marelli, Miller, Marino, Jefferson and Newburger9

Many factors contribute to neurodevelopmental and psychosocial/psychiatric outcomes but with only 30% of the variance in neurodevelopmental outcomes explained by measured risk factors,Reference Gaynor, Wernovsky and Jarvik28,Reference Bellinger, Watson and Rivkin32 further research on as-yet-unmeasured factors is vital.

Beyond the need to elucidate risk factors, there is a significant knowledge gap in how best to implement surveillance, screening, evaluation and management for cognitive and behavioural challenges across care settings and age groups. There is a paucity of trials to identify the most effective interventions to improve neurodevelopment, and psychosocial/psychiatric outcomes. The personal and financial costs of neurodevelopmental/neurocognitive deficits and mental illness across the lifespan are only beginning to be characterised, particularly in the growing population of adults with congenital heart disease. Moreover, the impact of parental stress and conflict, financial hardship, and childhood deprivation on well-being in children with congenital heart disease has been understudied, as has the influence of health disparities and cultural differences. The best tools in quality improvement and implementation science are needed not only to enhance surveillance, screening, evaluation, and management of neurodevelopmental/neurocognitive and psychosocial/psychiatric impairments but also to educate providers, families, and schools about the needs of the congenital heart disease population in order to improve outcomes.

While we celebrate breathtaking improvements in survival in the congenital heart disease population, the focus has now shifted to improving long-term health and well-being. To this end, we need to bridge critical knowledge gaps on the mechanisms underpinning neurodevelopmental/neurocognitive and psychosocial/psychiatric disabilities, test therapies to mitigate those disabilities, apply quality improvement methodology to ensure that the best care is available to diverse patients and families across diverse settings, and disseminate our findings to providers and schools in partnership with patients and families. The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative was an outgrowth of multi-disciplinary teams realising that our community of scientists and clinicians needed to translate what we had learned at our individual centres from both scientific and clinical care perspectives across centres to promote significant and innovative research, clinical care to maximise outcome, and quality improvement science to improve how that clinical care is best delivered.

Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative: founding period, vision, and mission

A confluence of two events resulted in the development of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative. In 2012, a multi-disciplinary group from the paediatric cardiovascular and developmental scientific and clinical communities published the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics Scientific Statement entitled, “Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Children with Congenital Heart Disease: Evaluation and Management,”Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger5 and the first Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Symposium was held at Boston Children’s Hospital. Leaders of these two novel accomplishments determined there remained a gap in understanding the best practices in neurodevelopmental and psychosocial services for individuals and their families with paediatric and congenital heart disease. Furthermore, innovative clinical, quality improvement, and research opportunities with collaboration across multiple disciplines and institutions were needed to address these gaps.

Out of the first Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Symposium a founding steering committee was formed, composed of multi-disciplinary leaders from paediatric cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, anaesthesia, cardiac nursing, psychology, neuropsychology, developmental pediatrics, neurology, critical care pediatrics, epidemiology and biostatistics, and cardiovascular research. This leadership group created three focussed multi-disciplinary working groups tasked with Cross-site Collaboration, Infant/Toddler Assessment and Management, and School-age Assessment and Management. Over the next few years, the Infant/Toddler and School-age working groups worked to define recommended neurodevelopmental test batteries for each age group to facilitate cross-site collaboration (see Ware et al and Ilardi and colleagues., this issue).

The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative was incorporated in the state of Michigan in October, 2015. The founding Steering Committee approved the Bylaws in April, 2016, and the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative received IRS 501c3 status designation in October, 2016. The first multi-disciplinary Elected Officials and Steering Committee assumed office in the summer 2016. At its inception, 28 institutional partners from North America and Europe joined the Collaborative to work together to prevent neurologic injury and improve the neurodevelopmental and psychosocial outcomes and health-related quality of life of our high-risk paediatric cardiac population.

Vision, mission, structure, function, and partnerships

The “Vision” and “Mission” of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative are detailed in Figure 1. The Executive Committee of the inaugural Steering Committee initially designed and populated a slate of Standing Committees (Fig 1). Each Standing Committee’s responsibilities and goals are outlined in the bylaws and are summarised in Table 1. The Steering Committee presides over and ensures that the activities of the standing committees and cores are in alignment with the Collaborative’s vision, mission, and goals. Standing Committees were populated through a competitive application process and each include patients and/or caregivers to promote their perspectives in all of the Collaborative’s endeavours. The Community Outreach Standing Committee is chaired by two patients and/or caregivers, who also serve as voting Patient/Caregiver Representatives on the Steering Committee.

Figure 1. Vision and Mission of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative.

Table 1. Standing committees responsibilities, goals, and close collaborators

Once formed, each Standing Committee focussed on their role in forwarding the mission and vision (Fig 1) of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative. The Research and the Database Committees were tasked with identifying the data collection for the clinical registry while balancing the breadth of data that would be of interest with the logistics of effort required by sites. Similarly, representatives from the Research, Quality Improvement, and Database Committees met frequently with members of the Executive Committee to clarify the role and content of the database, how data entry would occur, how data quality would be optimised, how data would be analysed, and how pertinent data would be made available to the member centres. The discussion ultimately led to prioritising funding and releasing requests for applications for three cores: a Neurodevelopmental Core Lab to support the testing approach of member centres and ensure the quality and fidelity of neurodevelopmental data collection; a Data Coordinating Centre to manage and ensure the quality of the clinical data registry; and, a Data Analysis Core to conduct data and statistical analyses. With the establishment of these cores, a representative from each was asked to join the Steering Committee.

Once the Steering Committee was established with representatives from the Executive Committee, Standing Committees, and Core labs (Fig 2), committee members drafted a Manual of Operations including information related to neurodevelopmental testing, steps to contribute to the registry, and outlining how individual members can initiate research and quality improvement projects in concert with the registry. To optimise efficiency and accuracy of data collection, the Collaborative partnered with Cardiac Networks United, a collaboration of quality improvement registries that currently includes the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium, Pediatric Acute Care Cardiology Collaborative, National Pediatric Cardiology Quality Improvement Collaborative, and Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network, and also with ArborMetrix, a healthcare technology company. Enhancing efficiency, the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative data registry launched as a module of the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium registry in May 2019. Each site has real time access to their own data and quality improvement metrics in a dashboard provided by ArborMetrix. The Data Coordinating Centre and Neurodevelopmental Core lab work collaboratively to ensure the accuracy and fidelity of the data (Fig 3). The Data Coordinating Centre will also be developing a separate data entry portal for sites that are not members of Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium.

Figure 2. Current Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative Steering Committee organisational structure.

Figure 3. Data management and analysis flow chart.

Collaborative approach to defining the agenda for research and quality improvement

The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative endeavoured in 2018 to summarise the state of the field and define the cardiac neurodevelopmental research and quality improvement agenda for the next decade by bringing together a multi-disciplinary, multi-national group of experts and patient/caregiver stakeholders for a two-day pre-meeting in advance of its annual scientific sessions. The effort was supported by an R13 grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and harnessed the knowledge and expertise of over 60 cardiac neurodevelopmental research and clinical leaders from more than 10 disciplines, experts in quality improvement science and health disparities, patients and parents to identify significant gaps in knowledge and critical questions that must be answered to advance neurodevelopmental care and outcomes.

Six multi-disciplinary working groups (each 10–12 members including patient, parents, and experts in health disparities) were formed corresponding with key domains of neurodevelopmental care and outcomes: Foetal Brain Development and Neuroprotection; Surgical/Perioperative Neuroprotection and Neurodevelopment; Characterisation of Neurodevelopmental and Psychological Outcomes; Neurodevelopmental and Psychosocial Intervention; Parent Mental Health and Family Functioning; and Neurodevelopmental Outreach, Education, and Advocacy. Results and recommendations based on this work will be disseminated through a series of manuscripts in an upcoming issue of Cardiology in the Young, and will guide the Collaborative’s investigational aims for years to come. In fact, Cardiology in the Young and the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative are also pleased to announce that Cardiology in the Young will serve as the official journal of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative.

Current state and future goals

The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative is currently in an exciting growth phase. Institutional membership has increased each year, and in 2020, there were 41 institutional members, primarily from North America (www.cardiacneuro.org). The 8th Annual Scientific Sessions of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative, held in 2019 in Toronto, Canada, was the largest meeting to date, with over 300 multi-disciplinary attendees. Since the registry platform launched in May, 2019, sites have entered data from neurodevelopmental evaluations for infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children, and a module for capturing data from school-age children is scheduled to launch in 2020. Through collaborations within Cardiac Networks United, investigators will be able to answer important questions efficiently from a broad multicentre perspective and with decreased reliance on costly and perhaps less representative single-centre clinical trials. With the growth of quality improvement registries, transparent collaboration alone can lead to improved outcomes and the ability to conduct trials within a registry may also be feasible. Reference Clauss, Anderson and Lannon41Reference Gaies, Pasquali and Banerjee47

We anticipate that the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative will benefit its member institutions by improving neurodevelopmental and psychosocial outcomes at the lowest cost, maximising patient and family experience, and facilitating a fully integrated service network of allied professionals including medical, mental health, education, and habilitative service providers. The Neurodevelopmental Core Lab, in collaboration with the Education and Training Committee, will continue to develop the initial work of the School Age and Infant/Toddler Working groups with the goal of developing and refining approaches to evaluation and management within member institutions. Through the network of leaders within the Collaborative, mentorship to developing programs related to navigating administrative and funding barriers is available. The scientific, clinical, and quality improvement information generated by the Collaborative will be critical for demonstrating value-added to payers (governmental and private). The Collaborative also will generate critical data that may be linked to other paediatric cardiovascular databases to create next generation critical predictor and longitudinal outcomes data across childhood and adolescence, and ultimately into adulthood. The information generated by the Collaborative will be critical to patients, parents, medical caregivers, medical institutions and health systems, and state and national health policy leaders.

Conclusion

Improving neurodevelopmental, psychosocial, and health-related quality of life for individuals with congenital heart disease has become a top priority in the paediatric cardiovascular and cardiac patient and parent/caregiver community.Reference Wernovsky48 Over the past decade, an increasing number of institutions have developed cardiac neurodevelopmental follow-up programs based on previously published research and guidelines. By fostering cross-site collaboration, and by providing the infrastructure to establish and disseminate evidence-based, meaningful and innovative science, and best-practice guidelines, the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative aims to accelerate improvements in care to optimise outcomes for individuals with congenital and paediatric cardiac disease.

Acknowledgments

The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative wishes to acknowledge the support of its founding steering committee, present steering committee and standing committee leaders, participating institutions, and its membership for all their work to envision, create, and support the Collaborative.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

Oster, M, Lee, K, Honein, M, Riehle-Colarusso, T, Shin, M, Correa, A. Temporal trends in survival among infants with critical congenital heart defects. Pediatrics 2013; 131: e1502e1508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Triedman, J, Newburger, J. Trends in congenital heart disease. Circulation 2016; 133: 27162733.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023544CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilboa, S, Devine, O, Kucik, J, et al. Congenital heart defects in the United States. Circulation 2016; 134: 101109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newburger, J, Wypij, D, Bellinger, D, et al. Length of stay after infant heart surgery is related to cognitive outcome at age 8 years. J Pediatr 2003; 143: 6773.10.1016/S0022-3476(03)00183-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, B, Lipkin, P, Newburger, J, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease: evaluation and management. Circulation 2012; 126: 11431172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, B, Tomlinson, R, Wernovsky, G, et al. Validation of the pediatric cardiac quality of life inventory. Pediatrics 2010; 126: 498508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, J, Brown, K, Franklin, R, Cassedy, A, Marino, B. Assessing the generalisability of the pediatric cardiac quality of life inventory in the United Kingdom. Cardiol Young 2013; 24: 220228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellion, K, Uzark, K, Cassedy, A, et al. Health-related quality of life outcomes in children and adolescents with congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 2014; 164: 781788.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marelli, A, Miller, S, Marino, B, Jefferson, A, Newburger, J. Brain in congenital heart disease across the lifespan. Circulation 2016; 133: 19511962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQuillen, PS, Barkovich, AJ, Hamrick, SEG, et al. Temporal and anatomic risk profile of brain injury with neonatal repair of congenital heart defects. Stroke 2007; 38: 736741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, C, Lu, M, Sleeper, L, et al. Factors associated with neurodevelopment for children with single ventricle lesions. J Pediatr 2014; 165: 490496.e8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimitropoulos, A, McQuillen, PS, Sethi, V, et al. Brain injury and development in newborns with critical congenital heart disease. Neurology 2013; 81: 241248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, BS. New concepts in predicting, evaluating, and managing neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease. Curr Opin Pediatr 2013; 25: 574584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clouchoux, C, du Plessis, AJ, Bouyssi-Kobar, M, et al. Delayed cortical development in fetuses with complex congenital heart disease. Cerebral Cortex 2013; 23: 29322943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Licht, D, Shera, DM, Clancy, RR, et al. Brain maturation is delayed in infants with complex congenital heart defects. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 529537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivkin, MJ, Watson, CG, Scoppettuolo, LA, et al. Adolescents with D-transposition of the great arteries repaired in early infancy demonstrate reduced white matter microstructure associated with clinical risk factors. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 146: 543549.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peyvandi, S, Kim, H, Lau, J, et al. The association between cardiac physiology, acquired brain injury, and postnatal brain growth in critical congenital heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 155: 291–300.e3.10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.08.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easson, K, Rohlicek, CV, Houde, JC, et al. Quantification of apparent axon density and orientation dispersion in the white matter of youth born with congenital heart disease. Neuroimage 2020; 205: 116255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, CG, Stopp, C, Newburger, JW, Rivkin, MJ. Graph theory analysis of cortical thickness networks in adolescents with D-transposition of the great arteries. Brain Behav 2018; 8: e00834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beca, J, Gunn, J, Coleman, L, et al. New white matter brain injury after infant heart surgery is associated with diagnostic group and the use of circulatory arrest. Circulation 2013; 127: 971979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peyvandi, S, Chau, V, Guo, T, et al. Neonatal brain injury and timing of neurodevelopmental assessment in patients with congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 19861996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, JM, Ko, T, Busch, DR, et al. Preoperative cerebral hemodynamics from birth to surgery in neonates with critical congenital heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 156: 16571664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, EM, Martin, RH, Atz, AM, et al. Association of intraoperative circulating-brain injury biomarker and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 1 year among neonates who have undergone cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 157: 19962002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, JH, Rotermann, I, Logoteta, J, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in hypoplastic left heart syndrome: impact of perioperative cerebral tissue oxygenation of the Norwood procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151: 13581366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andropoulos, DB, Ahmad, HB, Haq, T, et al. The association between brain injury, perioperative anesthetic exposure, and 12-month neurodevelopmental outcomes after neonatal cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Paediatr Anaesth 2014; 24: 266274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rollins, CK, Newburger, JW, Roberts, AE. Genetic contribution to neurodevelopmental outcomes in congenital heart disease: are some patients predetermined to have developmental delay? Curr Opin Pediatr 2017; 29: 529533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homsy, J, Zaidi, S, Shen, Y, et al. De novo mutations in congenital heart disease with neurodevelopmental and other congenitalanomalies. Science 2015; 350: 12621266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaynor, J, Wernovsky, G, Jarvik, G, et al. Patient characteristics are important determinants of neurodevelopmental outcome at one year of age after neonatal and infant cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 133: 13441353.e3. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, S, Sadhwani, A, Stopp, C, et al. Neurodevelopmental assessment of infants with congenital heart disease in the early postoperative period. Congenit Heart Dis 2018; 14: 236245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shillingford, A, Glanzman, M, Ittenbach, R, Clancy, R, Gaynor, J, Wernovsky, G. Inattention, hyperactivity, and school performance in a population of school-age children with complex congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2008; 121: e759e767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bean Jaworski, J, White, M, DeMaso, D, Newburger, J, Bellinger, D, Cassidy, A. Visuospatial processing in adolescents with critical congenital heart disease: organization, integration, and implications for academic achievement. Child Neuropsychol 2017; 24: 451468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellinger, D, Watson, C, Rivkin, M, et al. Neuropsychological status and structural brain imaging in adolescents with single ventricle who underwent the Fontan procedure. J Am Heart Assoc 2015; 4: e002302.10.1161/JAHA.115.002302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellinger, D, Wypij, D, Rivkin, M, et al. Adolescents with D-transposition of the great arteries corrected with the arterial switch procedure. Circulation 2011; 124: 13611369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerstle, M, Beebe, DW, Drotar, D, Cassedy, A, Marino, BS. Executive functioning and school performance among pediatric survivors of complex congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 2016; 173: 154159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monti, JD, Jackson, JL, Vannatta, K. Adolescents and young adults living with congenital heart disease: coping, stress reactivity, and emotional functioning. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2018; 25: 441451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussatto, KA, Sawin, KJ, Schiffman, R, Leske, J, Simpson, P, Marino, BS. The importance of self-perceptions to psychosocial adjustment in adolescents with heart disease. J Pediatr Health Care 2014; 28: 251261.10.1016/j.pedhc.2013.05.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spijkerboer, AW, De Koning, WB, Duivenvoorden, HJ, et al. Medical predictors for long-term behavioral and emotional outcomes in children and adolescents after invasive treatment of congenital heart disease. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45: 21462153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liamlahi, R, von Rhein, M, Bührer, S, et al. Motor dysfunction and behavioural problems frequently coexist with congenital heart disease in school-age children. Acta Paediatr 2014; 103: 752758.Google ScholarPubMed
Vanhalst, J, Rassart, J, Luyckx, K, Goossens, E, Apers, S, Goossens, L, Moons, P; i-DETACH Investigators. Trajectories of loneliness in adolescents with congenital heart disease: associations with depressive symptoms and perceived health. J Adolesc Health. 2013; 53: 342349.10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luyckx, K, Goossens, E, Rassart, J, Apers, S, Vanhalst, J, Moons, P. Parental support, internalizing symptoms, perceived health status, and quality of life in adolescents with congenital heart disease: influences and reciprocal effects. J Behav Med 2014; 37: 145155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clauss, SB, Anderson, JB, Lannon, C, et al. Quality improvement through collaboration: the national pediatric quality improvement collaborative initiative. Curr Opin Pediatr 2015; 27: 555562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaies, M, Anderson, J, Kipps, A, et al. Cardiac Networks United Executive Committee and Advisory Board. Cardiac Networks United: an integrated paediatric and congenital cardiovascular research and improvement network. Cardiol Young 2019; 29: 111118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, KE, Mahle, WT, Bush, L, et al. Variation in implementation and outcomes of early extubation practices after infant cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2019; 107: 14341440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kipps, AK, Cassidy, SC, Strohacker, CM, et al. Collective quality improvement in the paediatric cardiology acute care unit: establishment of the Pediatric Acute Care Cardiology Collaborative (PAC3). Cardiol Young 2018; 28: 10191023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquali, SK, Jacobs, JP, Farber, GK, et al. Report of the national heart, lung, and blood institute working group: an integrated network for congenital heart disease research. Circulation 2016; 133: 14101418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaies, M, Cooper, DS, Tabbutt, S, et al. Collaborative quality improvement in the cardiac intensive care unit: development of the Paediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4). Cardiol Young 2015; 25: 951957.10.1017/S1047951114001450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaies, M, Pasquali, SK, Banerjee, M, et al, Improvement in pediatric cardiac surgical outcomes through interhospital collaboration. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74: 27862795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wernovsky, G. (2006). Current insights regarding neurological and developmental abnormalities in children and young adults with complex congenital cardiac disease. Cardiol Young 16 (S1): 92104. doi: 10.1017/S1047951105002398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Vision and Mission of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative.

Figure 1

Table 1. Standing committees responsibilities, goals, and close collaborators

Figure 2

Figure 2. Current Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative Steering Committee organisational structure.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Data management and analysis flow chart.