Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:32:38.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language abilities in preschool children with critical CHD: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

Tegan Turner Open the ORCID record for Tegan Turner [Opens in a new window] ,
Nada El Tobgy ,
Kelly Russell ,
Chelsea Day Open the ORCID record for Chelsea Day [Opens in a new window] ,
Kristene Cheung ,
Shelley Proven  and
M. Florencia Ricci
Tegan Turner
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba Advanced Degrees in Medicine Program, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Nada El Tobgy
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba Advanced Degrees in Medicine Program, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Kelly Russell
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Chelsea Day
Affiliation:
Specialized Services for Children and Youth (SSCY) Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Kristene Cheung
Affiliation:
Specialized Services for Children and Youth (SSCY) Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Department of Clinical Health Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Shelley Proven
Affiliation:
Specialized Services for Children and Youth (SSCY) Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
M. Florencia Ricci*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Specialized Services for Children and Youth (SSCY) Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: M. Florencia Ricci, Specialized Services for Children and Youth, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Tel: 1 (204) 452-4311; E-mail: fricci@rccinc.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Context:

Children with critical CHD are at risk for neurodevelopmental impairments, including delays in expressive and receptive language development. However, no study has synthesised the literature regarding language abilities in children with this condition.

Objective:

We summarised the literature regarding expressive and receptive language in preschool children with critical CHD.

Data sources:

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycINFO, and CINAHL.

Study selection:

We included studies published between January, 1990 and 1 July, 2021, focused on children aged ≤5 years with critical CHD requiring a complex cardiac procedure at age <1 year. Language ability was documented using standardised, validated tools assessing both expressive and receptive language outcomes.

Data extraction:

Data (study, patient and language characteristics, and results) were extracted by two reviewers.

Results:

Seventeen studies were included. Among children 2–5 years old with critical CHD, there were statistically significant deficits in overall (standardised mean difference: –0.46; 95 % confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35), expressive (standardised mean difference: –0.45;95 % confidence interval: –0.54, –0.37), and receptive (standardised mean difference: –0.32; 95 % confidence interval: –0.40, –0.23) language compared to normative data. Results reported as medians were similar to meta-analysis findings. Subgroup analysis showed that children with univentricular physiology had lower language scores than children with biventricular physiology.

Conclusions:

Preschool children with critical CHD had statistically significantly lower language outcomes compared to expected population norms. Healthcare professionals should test early and often for language deficits, referring to individually tailored supports.

Keywords

CHDlanguagepreschool
Type
Review
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , May 2022 , pp. 683 - 693
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

CHD is the most common congenital defect, presenting in approximately 8 per 1000 live births. Reference van der Linde, Konings and Slager1 Of all children with this condition, approximately 25% have a critical form (i.e., critical CHD); for these children, survival is dependent on early complex surgical interventions. Reference Oster, Lee, Honein, Riehle-Colarusso, Shin and Correa2 While advances in the surgical and medical care of children with critical CHD have led to increased survival rates, children with critical CHD, and particularly those with univentricular CHD, are at high risk for neurodevelopmental impairments. The common developmental profile of children with critical CHD includes mild to moderate difficulties in motor, cognitive, attention, and language skills, which have all been linked to different prenatal, perioperative, and post-surgical factors. Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36

Until now, most studies examining the neurodevelopmental outcomes of children with critical CHD have concentrated on the motor and/or cognitive development, resulting in the synthesis of the literature on cognition and motor domains. Reference Bolduc, Dionne, Gagnon, Rennick, Majnemer and Brossard-Racine7–Reference Feldmann, Ullrich and Bataillard10 Despite the critical role language skills play in social connection and academic performance Reference Barre, Morgan, Doyle and Anderson11 , there has been notably less attention on the receptive (comprehension of language) Reference McLaughlin12 and expressive (communication of language) Reference McLaughlin12 language outcomes of children with critical CHD; to date, no study has synthesised the literature regarding language abilities in children with this condition.

As a result, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the language abilities of preschool children with critical CHD, including a comparison of language outcomes between those with univentricular versus biventricular CHD.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

An initial search (11 January, 1990-1 July, 2020) was completed on 1 July, 2020 to identify relevant literature on expressive and receptive language outcomes in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. In July of 2021, the same search strategy was repeated to identify any subsequently published studies. The search strategies were performed using the constructs of preschool children, critical CHD, and language outcomes to formulate the search, with adaptations to the search strategy according to each database. The search strategy is available from the authors upon request.

Inclusion criteria

This review included studies published in English from 1990–2021 that examined the receptive and expressive language outcomes of children aged 5 years or younger with critical CHD who required a complex cardiac procedure within the first year of life. Complex cardiac procedure was defined as having undergone surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass or catheter-based intervention. Studies had to involve direct assessment of a child’s expressive and receptive language ability through standardised testing using a validated tool to be included in the review. Study designs included in the review were cross-sectional, case–control, cohort, as well as randomised controlled trial.

We excluded studies of children: (1) who did not require surgery or (2) who had their initial heart surgery after one year of age or (3) non-bypass surgeries. Studies that assessed language abilities using screening tools or parent-completed questionnaires were also excluded.

The protocol was registered and submitted to Prospero, 13 an international prospective register for systematic reviews (CRD42020192505).

Study selection

The study selection was completed through a two-step process. Two reviewers (Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2) independently screened titles and, where available, abstracts. The reviewers categorised each study as “include,” “unsure,” or “exclude.” The full text of potentially relevant studies, the “include” or “unsure” categories, was obtained. The formal a priori inclusion criteria were independently applied to each potentially relevant study by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (Reviewer 3).

The authors of articles were contacted if the expressive and receptive outcomes were assessed but the results were not reported. If the author was able to provide the required data, the study was included.

Data extraction

A standardised form to facilitate data extraction was developed based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care, and clinical acumen by healthcare professionals and researchers. Reference Li, Higgins and Deeks14,15 General and demographic information extracted included article title, author names, date of publication, country of study, study design, single or multicentre study, sample size, population age, population sex, and cardiac diagnoses. Extraction of perioperative variables included procedures performed, number of cardiac surgeries under cardiopulmonary bypass, length of hospital stay, and comorbidities. Language data included age at language assessment, language tool used, and language outcome results for children with critical CHD and control data, if available. Data extraction was first performed independently by two reviewers (Reviewer 1, Reviewer 4) and then reviewed together to resolve any discrepancies.

Quality assessment

Quality assessment was completed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised trials Reference Sterne, Savović and Page16 and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions Reference Sterne, Hernán and Reeves17 assessment tool and template, as per the study design. The Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised trials tool assesses randomised studies through 5 domains for potential bias: randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurements of the outcome, and the selection of reported results. The Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised trials tool then classifies the randomised studies as low, some concerns, or high risk of bias. Reference Sterne, Savović and Page16 The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool assesses non-randomised studies through 7 different domains of potential bias: confounding, selection of study participants, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcome, and the selection of reported results. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool then classifies each non-randomised study as low, moderate, serious, or critical risk of bias. Reference Sterne, Higgins, Elbers and Reeves18

Two reviewers (Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2) independently assessed each article. The reviewers first pilot-tested 3 articles to ensure they operationalised each domain similarly based on the detailed guide and tool provided. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer (Reviewer 3).

Statistical analyses

Review Manager 19 software (version 5.4) was used to pool the study results into a standardised mean difference for overall, expressive, and receptive language outcomes when individual study results provided the mean and standard deviation, and it was statistically and clinically appropriate. Both fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed. A standardised mean difference pooled result was calculated and displayed as a random effects model with a 95% confidence interval since different language outcome tools were used by different studies. Four studies Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24,Reference Pizarro, Sood, Kerins, Duncan, Davies and Woodford31,Reference Verrall, Walker and Loughran-Fowlds35,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37 reported results using the median, interquartile range, or range as described in Table 1. If studies reported critical CHD subgroups without a score for the entire critical CHD cohort, such as children with normal hearing as compared to those with hearing loss, Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20 a combined summary statistic was calculated through the formulae provided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Reference Li, Higgins and Deeks14,21 For studies that compared univentricular to biventricular critical CHD, a subgroup analysis compared language scores. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was measured using the I2 statistic as suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration, in which values of 0–40% may be considered unimportant, 30–60% as moderate, 50–90% as representing substantial heterogeneity, and 75–100% as considerable heterogeneity (overlapping proportions are intentional). Reference Li, Higgins and Deeks14,21 If the fixed and random effects results were similar, the random effects models were reported. Reference Li, Higgins and Deeks14 Publication bias was assessed through visual interpretation of funnel plot symmetry and formally with the Egger test Reference Jin, Zhou and He22 using STATA software 23 where p < 0.05 indicated likely publication bias.

Results

Literature search results

A total of 5001 articles were identified through the initial database literature search, and an additional 268 articles were identified in the follow-up year of 2021. Ultimately, 17 articles (15 observational, 2 randomised) met the inclusion criteria (Fig 1), with thirteen articles published in the last ten years. Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Hicks, Sauve and Robertson26,Reference Meuwly, Feldmann and Knirsch28,Reference Verrall, Walker and Loughran-Fowlds35–Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Characteristics of the seventeen included studies are provided in Table 1. To summarise, 13 (77%) Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29–Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36–Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38 included language outcomes for preschool children aged 2 to 5 years; six Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Meuwly, Feldmann and Knirsch28,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Verrall, Walker and Loughran-Fowlds35,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 assessed language outcomes at approximately 12 months of age, and two Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Brosig Soto, Olude and Hoffman34 reported language outcomes at approximately 6 months of age. Thirteen studies (76%) Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Sood, Benzaquen, Davies, Woodford and Pizarro30–Reference Brosig Soto, Olude and Hoffman34,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37–Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 were conducted in North America, two (12%) Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Verrall, Walker and Loughran-Fowlds35 in Australia, one (6%) Reference Meuwly, Feldmann and Knirsch28 was in Switzerland, and one (8%) Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 in Japan. Study designs included cohort (8; 47%), Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Hicks, Sauve and Robertson26,Reference Meuwly, Feldmann and Knirsch28,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Brosig Soto, Olude and Hoffman34–Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37 prospective case series (4; 24%), Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Brosig, Mussatto and Hoffman32,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33 cross-sectional (3; 18%), Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24,Reference Sood, Benzaquen, Davies, Woodford and Pizarro30,Reference Pizarro, Sood, Kerins, Duncan, Davies and Woodford31 and randomised controlled trial (2; 12%) Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 . Most studies included both cardiac pathologies (13; 76%), Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24,Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27–Reference Pizarro, Sood, Kerins, Duncan, Davies and Woodford31,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33–Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 , one study examined only univentricular cardiac physiology (6%), Reference Brosig, Mussatto and Hoffman32 and three examined only biventricular physiology (18%). Reference Hicks, Sauve and Robertson26,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37,Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38

Table 1. Description of included studies and language results summary

Bayley-III = Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition; CA = cardiac arrest; CELF-P2 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool-2; CHD = congenital heart disease; EOWPVT = Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test; EOWPVT (3rd ed.) = Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition; IP-DHCA = Total body intermittent perfusion-Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest group; IQR = interquartile range; IVS = interventricular septum; LFB = low flow bypass; Mo = months; ROWPVT = Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test; ROWPVT (2nd ed.) = Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Second Edition; SV = single ventricle; TGA = transposition of the great arteries; U-DHCA = uninterrupted-deep hypothermic circulatory arrest group; VLBW = very low birth weight; VSD = ventricular septal defect; 2V = two ventricle.

*Unpublished data provided by author.

Of the 13 studies focused on preschool children, 13 (76%) Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25–Reference Pizarro, Sood, Kerins, Duncan, Davies and Woodford31,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33–Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 used the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III), a standardised assessment tool that measures cognitive, motor, and language (expressive and receptive) development of children up to the age of 42 months (general population mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15; expressive and receptive subscales: mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3). Reference Bayley40,Reference Bayley41 The other 4 studies completed language assessment using either the Receptive and Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary tests (mean of 100, standard deviation of 15), Reference Gardner42–Reference Brownell45 the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (mean of 100, standard deviation of 15), Reference Zimmerman, Steiner and Pond46 or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool-2 Word Sentence and Sentence Structure Subtests (mean of 10, standard deviation of 3). Reference Wiig, Semel and Secord47

Methodological quality of included studies

Of the 15 observational studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, 7 (47%) Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24–Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29 studies were at serious risk of bias, and eight (53%) Reference Sood, Benzaquen, Davies, Woodford and Pizarro30–Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37 had a critical risk of bias. Sources of bias included confounding, the selection of study participants, and the measurement of outcome due to lack of blinding. Of the 2 randomised studies that were assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomised trials tool, one study Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38 had some concerns and the other Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 was rated as high risk of bias. Sources of bias included the randomisation process and the selection of the reported results. Specific details are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Methodological quality of included studies

Language outcomes at 2–5 year of age

Thirteen studies examined language outcomes for children aged 2–5 years of age. Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29–Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36–Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38

Expressive language outcomes

Ten studies (77%) Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Sood, Benzaquen, Davies, Woodford and Pizarro30,Reference Brosig, Mussatto and Hoffman32,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36,Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38 reported data on expressive language outcomes that could be used for the meta-analysis. The standardised mean difference for expressive language score was statistically significantly lower for children with critical CHD compared to those without this condition (standardised mean difference: –0.45; 95 % confidence interval: –0.54, –0.37; Fig 2a).

Figure 2. Forest plot and standard mean difference for expressive (2a), receptive (2b) and overall (2c) language scores of children 2–5y with critical congenital heart disease The standard mean difference for each study is represented by a square with confidence interval bars. The size of the box indicates the relative weight of the study, The total meta–analysis result is represented by the diamond. Negative values indicate lower scores for the critical congenital heart disease.

Four studies (31%) Reference Brosig, Mussatto and Hoffman32,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36,Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38 reported an expressive language score statistically significantly lower than the normative population data (but still within one standard deviation of the population mean).

Receptive language outcomes

In the meta-analysis, 10 studies (77%) Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Sood, Benzaquen, Davies, Woodford and Pizarro30,Reference Brosig, Mussatto and Hoffman32,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36,Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38 reported receptive language outcomes that could be pooled. The standardised mean difference for receptive language was statistically significantly lower for children with critical CHD compared to those without this condition (standardised mean difference: –0.32; 95 % confidence interval: –0.40, –0.23; Fig 2b).

Three studies (23%) Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36,Reference Bellinger, Wypij and Kuban38 provided a receptive language outcome score statistically significantly lower than the normative population data and within one standard deviation of the population mean.

Overall language outcomes

The 7 studies (78%) Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 with data available for overall language resulted in a pooled estimate that showed that the overall language standardised mean difference was statistically significantly lower for children with than without critical CHD (standardised mean difference: –0.46; 95 % confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35; Fig 2c).

Nine studies Reference Grasty, Ittenbach and Knightly20,Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25–Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Pizarro, Sood, Kerins, Duncan, Davies and Woodford31,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37 reported an overall language score: 2 (22%) Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 were statistically significantly lower than the normative mean (but still within one standard deviation of the general population mean).

Subgroup analysis based on cardiac physiology

Only 4 studies (24%) Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24,Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 described language outcomes for children with univentricular as compared to biventricular cardiac physiologies. The I2 statistic assessing statistical heterogeneity within the 2 studies was substantial (I2 = 64%) for expressive language scores, precluding a formal meta-analysis. Reference Li, Higgins and Deeks14 Two studies reported significantly lower overall language scores for children with univentricular critical CHD as compared to biventricular physiology. Reference Gunn, Beca and Hunt29,Reference Sood, Benzaquen, Davies, Woodford and Pizarro30,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 One study Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24 found expressive language values to be significantly lower for children with univentricular versus biventricular physiology. Two studies Reference Brosig, Mussatto, Kuhn and Tweddell24,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 reported significantly lower receptive language values for univentricular physiology as compared to biventricular physiology.

Language outcomes at 12 months

The I2 statistic assessing statistical heterogeneity for all language outcomes was significant, therefore, precluding a meta-analysis. However, all 6 studies Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Meuwly, Feldmann and Knirsch28,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Verrall, Walker and Loughran-Fowlds35,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39 reported overall, expressive, and receptive language scores on the Bayley-III language tool within one standard deviation of the normative mean. One study Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33 reported statistically significantly lower expressive and receptive language scores for children with critical CHD when compared to the general population mean. Overall language was not determined to be statistically significantly different in any study. Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Meuwly, Feldmann and Knirsch28,Reference Fourdain, St-Denis and Harvey33,Reference Favilla, Faerber and Hampton37,Reference Graham, Martin and Atz39

Language outcomes at 6 months

The I2 statistic assessing statistical heterogeneity for all language outcomes was significant; therefore, a meta-analysis was not performed. Both studies Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25,Reference Brosig Soto, Olude and Hoffman34 reported expressive and receptive language scores below the mean. Brosig Soto et al (2011) Reference Brosig Soto, Olude and Hoffman34 reported a language outcome significantly lower than the normative population mean at 96.8 (SD: 12.7, p = .005), while Noeder et al (2017) Reference Noeder, Logan and Struemph25 reported a language score greater than one standard deviation below the population mean at 84.1 (SD: 15.0).

Publication bias

Publication bias could only be assessed for language outcomes for children 2 to 5 years of age. Funnel plots showed little evidence of publication bias for overall (p = 0.14), expressive (p = 0.89), and receptive (p = 0.62) language outcomes.

Discussion

Findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that preschool children with critical CHD have statistically significantly lower expressive, receptive, and overall language abilities when compared to their peers and that they struggle more with expressive than with receptive language skills. Additionally, although statistical heterogeneity precluded determining a pooled overall effect to quantify the difference, children with univentricular physiology appear to have higher rates of language delay than children with biventricular physiology. The importance of studying language outcomes relies on the significant role language plays in a child’s development; language is essential for communication and is a key component of academic functioning. Even modest deficits in language abilities are known to significantly impact a child’s day-to-day function, communication, and to negatively influence social interaction. Reference van Agt, Essink-Bot, van der Stege, de Ridder Sluiter and de Koning48

The results of this study are consistent with previous reports and recommendations. The Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Outcome Collaborative indicates expressive language delays are a common concern for children with critical CHD and should be monitored. Reference Ware, Butcher and Latal49 The guidelines developed by American Heart Association also highlight the need to assess language development and to refer to speech-language pathology when language deficits are identified. Reference Ware, Butcher and Latal49,Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger50 Findings that children with univentricular critical CHD struggle more in certain areas of neurodevelopment than children with biventricular critical CHD have been previously reported and determined to be statistically significant . Reference Puosi, Korkman and Sarajuuri51–Reference Huisenga, La Bastide-Van Gemert and Van Bergen54

This review found similar findings to those of studies looking at the longer-term language outcomes of school-aged children with critical CHD. In an article by Bellinger et al (2003), Reference Bellinger, Wypij and duPlessis55 school-aged children within the critical CHD cohort were found to have significantly lower scores than the expected mean. Similarly, in an article by Mahle et al (2000), Reference Mahle, Clancy, Moss, Gerdes, Jobes and Wernovsky56 children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome at school age had expressive and receptive skills that were statistically significant and below the norm. In a study by Hövels-Gürich (2006), Reference Hovels-Gurich, Konrad and Skorzenski57 expressive and receptive language values in children at school age were found to be within one standard deviation of the normative mean within the cohort studied and were statistically significant findings as compared to the normative population mean. In a second study by Hövels-Gürich (2008), Reference Hovels-Gurich, Bauer and Schnitker58 school-aged children were more impaired in expressive language testing than overall or receptive language testing. Such studies then highlight the importance of long-term follow-up as children with critical CHD appear to continue to be at high risk for language delays (and particularly expressive language delays). A lack of significant language difference found at 12 months compared to those differences found at 2–5 years suggests a need for continuous follow-up that is supported by the literature. Reference Marino, Lipkin and Newburger50

The results of this language-focused systematic review are also consistent with reviews of studies in motor and cognitive neurodevelopmental delay in children with critical CHD. Reference Bolduc, Dionne, Gagnon, Rennick, Majnemer and Brossard-Racine7–Reference Sterken, Lemiere, Van den Berghe and Mesotten9 Reviews of both motor and cognitive abilities of preschool children with critical CHD have shown that children with this condition score significantly lower than their non-critical CHD peers. Reference Bolduc, Dionne, Gagnon, Rennick, Majnemer and Brossard-Racine7–Reference Sterken, Lemiere, Van den Berghe and Mesotten9 Proposed explanations of such delays in multiple developmental domains include chronic brain hypoxia, increased incidences of pre- and post-natal brain injury, brain immaturity, and other clinical and environmental factors. Reference Morton, Ishibashi and Jonas59–Reference Limperopoulos, Majnemer and Shevell63

Importantly, some of the literature suggests the Bayley-III overestimates language ability for both healthy developing and children with critical CHD; Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Anderson, De Luca, Hutchinson, Roberts and Doyle64–Reference Goldstone, Baiocchi and Wypij66 which could mean that children with critical CHD have even worse language skills than this systematic review and meta-analysis reports. Anderson et al (2017) Reference Anderson and Burnett65 found an increase in language scores on the most recent edition of the Bayley-III compared to the Bayley-II. Moreover, Goldstone et al (2020) Reference Goldstone, Baiocchi and Wypij66 found this increase to be significant in children with critical CHD. Notably, our review included publications that used other language assessment tools and determined that those findings were consistent with the results of studies that utilised the Bayley-III. This consistency suggests that the language abilities of preschool children with critical CHD are typically below average.

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review and meta-analysis. First, the methodological quality of the included studies was rated quite poorly. This rating is unsurprising given that the detailed guide of the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool indicates that “…it will be rare that an NRSI [non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions] is judged as at low risk of bias due to confounding, we anticipate that most NRSI will be judged as at least at moderate overall risk of bias.” Reference Sterne, Higgins, Elbers and Reeves18 Often, the overall risk of bias was rated as serious or critical and was typically due to the first domain regarding confounders, missing statements of possible confounders, selection of participants, and lack of blinding. However, the results of the two randomised controlled trials that focused on 2 to 5 year-old-children, which should have a balance of known and unknown confounders between the 2 groups, were similar to the non-randomised controlled trial results. The expressive and receptive scores led to the consistent conclusion that children with critical CHD at 2–5 years of age are below the normative means. While many studies were classified at critical risk, basing the use of articles solely on the quality assessment of studies that are not amenable to randomised control trials may prevent the inclusion of critical results in many different areas of research. Reference Thomson, Craig, Hilton-Boon, Campbell and Katikireddi67

Comparing outcomes to normative population data without further adjustments may introduce bias into the results as any difference found between children with critical CHD and the normative population may seem to be causal, when in reality differences such as socioeconomic status, support interventions, or other differences may have large effects in children with critical CHD that may not be accounted for.

Finally, only two studies Reference Acton, Biggs and Creighton27,Reference Yoshida, Hiraiwa and Ibuki36 reported language outcome data comparing univentricular and biventricular cardiac physiologies. Although heterogeneity precluded pooling the individual results, reports of lower language scores and other neurodevelopmental domains support the findings of our review. Reference Puosi, Korkman and Sarajuuri51,Reference Reich, Heye and Tuura52,Reference Huisenga, La Bastide-Van Gemert and Van Bergen54 Likewise, although the presence of a genetic anomaly among children with critical CHD is known to impact developmental outcomes, this review was unable to examine language outcomes based on the presence or absence of genetic anomalies as the included studies did not consistently stratify their results by this variable. Future research to determine the exact clinical and statistical significance of differences in language outcomes between these two cardiac physiologies and the stratification of language abilities in children with additional genetic anomalies is recommended.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to review and assess the results from the literature on overall, expressive, and receptive language abilities in preschool children with critical CHD. The findings indicate that preschool children with critical CHD have significantly lower language abilities when compared to the general population and may be more affected in the expressive language domain than in their receptive language skills. Future research should focus on determining language outcomes among older children with critical CHD as well as on testing interventions to improve language skills in this population.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the medical librarian, Janet Rothney, for her assistance in the search strategy, the Excellence in Neurodevelopmental Rehabilitation Research in Child Health group for their trainee programme feedback and to Advanced Degrees in Medicine University of Manitoba for the opportunity to complete this review as a Bachelor of Science in Medicine degree Project.

Financial support

Ms. Turner was supported by the Bachelor of Science in Medicine degree programme.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

van der Linde, D, Konings, E, Slager, M, et al. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 2241–2247.10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oster, M, Lee, K, Honein, M, Riehle-Colarusso, T, Shin, M, Correa, A. Temporal trends in survival among infants with critical congenital heart defects. Am Acad Pediatr 2013; 131: 1–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahle, WT, Wernovsky, G. Long-term developmental outcome of children with complex congenital heart disease. Cardiovasc Dis Neonate 2001; 28: 235–247.Google ScholarPubMed
Peyvandi, S, Latal, B, Miller, SP, McQuillen, PS. The neonatal brain in critical congenital heart disease: insights and future directions. Neuroimage 2019; 185: 776–782.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wernovsky, G, Licht, DJ. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease-what can we impact? Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17 (Suppl 1): S232–S242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wernovsky, G. Current insights regarding neurological and developmental abnormalities in children and young adults with complex congenital cardiac disease. Cardiol Young 2006; 16: 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolduc, M, Dionne, E, Gagnon, I, Rennick, JE, Majnemer, A, Brossard-Racine, M. Motor impairment in children with congenital heart defects: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2020; 146: 1–16.10.1542/peds.2020-0083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snookes, S, Gunn, J, Eldridge, B, et al. A systematic review of motor and cognitive outcomes after early surgery for congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2010; 125: e818–e827.10.1542/peds.2009-1959CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterken, C, Lemiere, J, Van den Berghe, G, Mesotten, D. Neurocognitive development after pediatric heart surgery. Pediatrics 2016; 137: 32.10.1542/peds.2015-4675CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldmann, M, Ullrich, C, Bataillard, C, et al. Neurocognitive outcome of school-aged children with congenital heart disease who underwent cardiopulmonary bypass surgery: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2019; 8: 236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barre, N, Morgan, A, Doyle, LW, Anderson, PJ. Language abilities in children who were very preterm and/or very low birth weight: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr 2011; 158: 766–774.10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.10.032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, MR. Speech and language delay in children. Am Acad Fam Physicians 2011; 83: 1183–1188.Google ScholarPubMed
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (accessed April 2021).Google Scholar
Li, T, Higgins, JPT, Deeks, JJ (editors). Chapter 5: Collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Retrieved from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.Google Scholar
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York Publishing Services Ltd, York, 2009; 1–294.Google Scholar
Sterne, J, Savović, J, Page, M, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: I4898.10.1136/bmj.l4898CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterne, JA, Hernán, MA, Reeves, BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Sterne, J, Higgins, J, Elbers, R, Reeves, B, the Development Group for ROBINS-I. Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I): Detailed Guidance, 2016. Retrieved January 2021 from http://www.riskofbias.info.Google Scholar
The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan), 2020. https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman.Google Scholar
Grasty, MA, Ittenbach, RF, Knightly, C, et al. Hearing loss after cardiac surgery in infancy: an unintended consequence of life-saving care. J Pediatr 2018; 192: 144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2, 2021. Retrieved accessed May 2021 from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.Google Scholar
Jin, Z-C, Zhou, X-H, He, J. Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2015; 34: 343–360.10.1002/sim.6342CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. StataCorp, College Station, TX, 2021.Google Scholar
Brosig, CL, Mussatto, KA, Kuhn, EM, Tweddell, JS. Neurodevelopmental outcome in preschool survivors of complex congenital heart disease: implications for clinical practice. J Pediatr Heal Care 2007; 21: 3–12.10.1016/j.pedhc.2006.03.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noeder, MM, Logan, BA, Struemph, KL, et al. Developmental screening in children with CHD: ages and stages questionnaires. Cardiol Young 2017; 27: 1447–1454.10.1017/S1047951117000415CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, MS, Sauve, RS, Robertson, CMT, et al. Early childhood language outcomes after arterial switch operation: a prospective cohort study. Springerplus 2016; 5: 1–10.10.1186/s40064-016-3344-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acton, BV., Biggs, WSGG, Creighton, DE, et al. Overestimating neurodevelopment using the Bayley-III after early complex cardiac surgery. Pediatrics 2011; 128: 794–800.10.1542/peds.2011-0331CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwly, E, Feldmann, M, Knirsch, W, et al. Postoperative brain volumes are associated with one-year neurodevelopmental outcome in children with severe congenital heart disease. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 1–11.10.1038/s41598-019-47328-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunn, JK, Beca, J, Hunt, RW, et al. Perioperative risk factors for impaired neurodevelopment after cardiac surgery in early infancy. Arch Dis Child 2016; 101: 1010–1016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sood, ED, Benzaquen, JS, Davies, RR, Woodford, E, Pizarro, C. Predictive value of perioperative near-infrared spectroscopy for neurodevelopmental outcomes after cardiac surgery in infancy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 435–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizarro, C, Sood, ED, Kerins, P, Duncan, D, Davies, RR, Woodford, E. Neurodevelopmental outcomes after infant cardiac surgery with circulatory arrest and intermittent perfusion. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosig, C, Mussatto, K, Hoffman, G, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes for children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome at the age of 5 years. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34: 1597–1604.10.1007/s00246-013-0679-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fourdain, SS, St-Denis, A, Harvey, J, et al. Language development in children with congenital heart disease aged 12–24 months. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2019; 23: 491–499.10.1016/j.ejpn.2019.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosig Soto, C, Olude, O, Hoffman, RG, et al. Implementation of a routine developmental follow-up program for children with congenital heart disease: early results. Congenit Heart Dis 2011; 6: 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrall, CE, Walker, K, Loughran-Fowlds, A, et al. Contemporary incidence of stroke (focal infarct and/or haemorrhage) determined by neuroimaging and neurodevelopmental disability at 12 months of age in neonates undergoing cardiac surgery utilizing cardiopulmonary bypass. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018; 26: 644–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshida, T, Hiraiwa, A, Ibuki, K, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 3 years for infants with congenital heart disease and very-low birthweight. Pediatr Int 2020; 62: 797–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Favilla, E, Faerber, JA, Hampton, LE, et al. Early evaluation and the effect of socioeconomic factors on neurodevelopment in infants with tetralogy of Fallot. Pediatr Cardiol 2021; 42: 643–653.10.1007/s00246-020-02525-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellinger, DC, Wypij, D, Kuban, KC, et al. Developmental and neurological status of children at 4 years of age after heart surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest or low-flow cardiopulmonary bypass. Circulation 1999; 100: 526–532.10.1161/01.CIR.100.5.526CrossRefGoogle 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: 1996–2002.10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.01.040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayley, N. Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development: Technical Manual. Harcourt, San Antonio, TX, 2006.Google Scholar
Bayley, N. Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development: Administration Manual. Harcourt, San Antonio, TX, 2006.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised). Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
Brownell, R. Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
Brownell, R. Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, I, Steiner, V, Pond, R. Preschool Language Scale-4. Harcourt, San Antonio, TX, 2002.Google Scholar
Wiig, EH, Semel, EM, Secord, W, Pearson Education Inc (Firm), PsychCorp (Firm). CELF Preschool-2: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool. Pearson/PsychCorp, San Antonio, TX, 2004.Google Scholar
van Agt, HME, Essink-Bot, ML, van der Stege, HA, de Ridder Sluiter, JG, de Koning, HJ. Quality of life in children with language delays. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1345–1355.10.1007/s11136-004-6013-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, J, Butcher, JL, Latal, B, et al. Neurodevelopmental evaluation strategies for children with congenital heart disease aged birth through 5 years: recommendations from the cardiac neurodevelopmental outcome collaborative. Cardiol Young 2020; 30: 1609–1622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, BS, Lipkin, PH, Newburger, JW, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease: evaluation and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 126: 1143–1172.10.1161/CIR.0b013e318265ee8aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puosi, R, Korkman, M, Sarajuuri, A, et al. Neurocognitive development and behavioral outcome of 2-year-old children with univentricular heart. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2011; 17: 1094–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reich, B, Heye, K, Tuura, R, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome and health-related quality of life in children with single-ventricle heart disease before Fontan procedure. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 29: 504–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, MF, Fung, A, Moddemann, D, et al. Comparison of motor outcomes between preschool children with univentricular and biventricular critical heart disease not diagnosed with cerebral palsy or acquired brain injury. Cardiol Young 2021; 31: 1788–1795.10.1017/S1047951121000895CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huisenga, D, La Bastide-Van Gemert, S, Van Bergen, A, et al. Developmental outcomes after early surgery for complex congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol 2020; 63(1): 29–46. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellinger, DC, Wypij, D, duPlessis, AJ, et al. Neurodevelopmental status at eight years in children with dextro-transposition of the great arteries: the Boston circulatory arrest trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 126: 1385–1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahle, WT, Clancy, RR, Moss, EM, Gerdes, M, Jobes, DR, Wernovsky, G. Neurodevelopmental outcome and lifestyle assessment in school-aged and adolescent children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 1082–1089.10.1542/peds.105.5.1082CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hovels-Gurich, HH, Konrad, K, Skorzenski, D, et al. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcome and exercise capacity after corrective surgery for tetralogy of Fallot or ventricular septal defect in infancy. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 958–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hovels-Gurich, HH, Bauer, SB, Schnitker, R, et al. Long-term outcome of speech and language in children after corrective surgery for cyanotic or acyanotic cardiac defects in infancy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2008; 12: 378–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, PD, Ishibashi, N, Jonas, RA. Neurodevelopmental abnormalities and congenital heart disease: insights into altered brain maturation. Circ Res 2017; 120: 960–977.10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brossard-Racine, M, du Plessis, A, Vezina, G, et al. Brain injury in neonates with complex congenital heart disease: what is the predictive value of MRI in the fetal period? Am J Neuroradiol 2016; 37: 1338–1346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andropoulos, DB, Hunter, JV, Nelson, DP, et al. Brain immaturity is associated with brain injury before and after neonatal cardiac surgery with high-flow bypass and cerebral oxygenation monitoring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 543–556.10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.08.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, DS, Jeffries, HE, Zimmerman, JJ, Wong, HR, Carcillo, JA. Sepsis in the pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. World J Pediatr Congenit Hear Surg 2011; 2: 393–399.10.1177/2150135111403781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Limperopoulos, C, Majnemer, A, Shevell, MI, et al. Predictors of developmental disabilities after open heart surgery in young children with congenital heart defects. J Pediatr 2002; 141: 51–58.10.1067/mpd.2002.125227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, PJ, De Luca, CR, Hutchinson, E, Roberts, G, Doyle, LW, the Victorian Infant Collaborative Group. Underestimation of developmental delay by the New Bayley-III scale. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164: 352–356.10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, PJ, Burnett, A. Assessing developmental delay in early childhood – concerns with the Bayley-III scales. Clin Neuropsychol 2017; 31: 371–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, AB, Baiocchi, M, Wypij, D, et al. The Bayley-III scale may underestimate neurodevelopmental disability after cardiac surgery in infants. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 57: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, H, Craig, P, Hilton-Boon, M, Campbell, M, Katikireddi, SV. Applying the ROBINS-I tool to natural experiments: an example from public health. Syst Rev 2018; 7: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Figure 1

Table 1. Description of included studies and language results summary

Figure 2

Table 2. Methodological quality of included studies

Figure 3

Figure 2. Forest plot and standard mean difference for expressive (2a), receptive (2b) and overall (2c) language scores of children 2–5y with critical congenital heart disease The standard mean difference for each study is represented by a square with confidence interval bars. The size of the box indicates the relative weight of the study, The total meta–analysis result is represented by the diamond. Negative values indicate lower scores for the critical congenital heart disease.