Implementation of Rapid Genome Sequencing for Infants with Congenital Heart Disease
===================================================================================

* Thomas Hays
* Rebecca Hernan
* Michele Disco
* Emily Griffin
* Nimrod Goldshtrom
* Diana Vargas
* Ganga Krishnamurthy
* Atteeq U. Rehman
* Amanda T. Wilson
* Saurav Guha
* Shruti Phadke
* Volkan Okur
* Dino Robinson
* Vanessa Felice
* Avinash Abhyankar
* Vaidehi Jobanputra
* Wendy K. Chung

## Abstract

**Background** Rapid genome sequencing (rGS) has been shown to improve the care of critically ill infants. Congenital heart disease (CHD) is a leading cause of infant mortality, and is often caused by genetic disorders, yet the utility of rGS has not been prospectively studied in this population.

**Methods** We conducted a prospective evaluation of the use of rGS to improve the care of infants with CHD in our cardiac neonatal intensive care unit (CNICU).

**Results** In a cohort of 48 infants with CHD, rGS diagnosed 14 genetic disorders in 13 (27%) individuals and led to changes in clinical management in eight (62%) cases with diagnostic results. These included two cases in whom genetic diagnoses helped avert intensive, futile interventions prior to CNICU discharge, as well as three cases in whom eye disease was diagnosed and treated in early childhood. Genetic disorders were associated with small for gestational age birth weight.

**Conclusions** Our study provides the first prospective evaluation of rGS for infants with CHD to our knowledge. We found that rGS diagnosed genetic disorders in 27% of cases and led to changes in management in 62% of cases with diagnostic results. Our model of care was enabled by multidisciplinary coordination between neonatologists, cardiologists, surgeons, geneticists, and genetic counselors. These findings highlight the important role for rGS in CHD and demonstrate the need for expanded study of how to implement this resource to a broader population of infants with CHD.

Keywords
*   cardiac neonatal intensive care unit (CNICU)
*   congenital heart disease (CHD)
*   rapid genome sequencing (rGS)

## Introduction

Recent studies using genomic sequencing have demonstrated that genetic disorders account for a significant portion of critical illness in infants.1-5 Rapid genome sequencing (rGS) leads to improvements in clinical management and is perceived as beneficial by healthcare providers and parents of critically ill infants.6-11 Genetic disorders in infants often present nonspecifically, then progress to life threatening illness or death.12,13 For example, it may be impossible to distinguish whether a congenital anomaly is an isolated feature, or the sentinel manifestation of a syndromic process that includes progressive multi-organ disease. Thus, a rapid diagnosis can help prevent or mitigate disease processes, avoid aggressive but futile interventions, and shorten the diagnostic odyssey.

Congenital heart disease (CHD), which affects approximately 1% of infants, is often genetic in etiology.14-16 Pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) and single and oligonucleotide variants can be found in approximately 10–20% of individuals with CHD, with increasingly recognized contribution from noncoding variants.17 Genetic disorders are particularly prevalent in infants with complex structural anomalies and involvement of other organ systems.18-20 Infants with CHD are at high risk for severe co-morbidities and mortality.21 Retrospective analysis of rGS in infants with CHD demonstrated improved care at a lower cost;22 however, rGS has not been prospectively studied in this population. Here we describe a prospective investigation of the use of rGS to improve the care of infants with CHD.

## Methods

This was a single-center prospective cohort study, which was approved by the Columbia University Irving Medical Center Institutional Review Board. Parents of infants gave written informed consent, and procedures were followed in accordance with institutional guidelines. We implemented a novel, multidisciplinary strategy to integrate rGS into the Columbia model of neonatal cardiac care.23,24 In this model, infants with CHD are cared for in a dedicated cardiac neonatal intensive care unit (CNICU), staffed by medical and nursing providers with specialized training and expertise caring for infants with CHD. To decrease the time to return of results, neonatologists and cardiologists were empowered to directly identify infants in whom: 1) a genetic disorder was suspected, and 2) rapid diagnosis might improve clinical management. Cases were then directly referred to a team of genetic counselors to confirm appropriateness of rGS testing, and to conduct pretest counseling. This counseling included discussion of the return of primary genetic results, secondary medically actionable findings, and selected pharmacogenomic variants with neonatal management implications. Genetic counselors and geneticists performed post-test counseling. Infants with any structural CHD without an established genetic diagnosis, and with both parents available for sample collection for trio genome sequencing were eligible for study inclusion.

rGS was performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) approved laboratory. Total genomic DNA was purified from whole blood using standard methods. Sequencing libraries were then prepared using the KAPA Hyper Library preparation kit (Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, MA). Libraries were subjected to 2 X 150 bp paired-end sequencing on HiSeq X instrument (Illumina, USA), to achieve a mean sequencing depth of 30 X. Variant analysis was performed using a proprietary clinical pipeline at the New York Genome Center’s clinical laboratory which follows the GATK best practices guidelines.25 Variant interpretation and classifications were performed using standard criteria of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).26-28 Results of rGS were considered diagnostic for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes with consistent phenotypes and patterns of inheritance as observed.

A complete manual chart review was conducted from admission to discharge from the CNICU. Demographic and clinical details were collected including gestational age, birth weight, the presence of extracardiac anomalies, incidence of co-morbidities and mortality, family history, and disposition from the CNICU. Birth weight was classified as appropriate, small, or large for gestational age (AGA, SGA, or LGA) based on the 10th and 90th percentiles for gestational age and sex by Fenton classification.29 Forms of CHD were hierarchically categorized into groups with similar etiology, as previously described.30 First, cases involving a laterality defect (LAT), including heterotaxy, and regardless of the presence of other lesions, were grouped. Next, cases with a conotruncal defect (CTD) were grouped regardless of the presence of other defects. Then, cases with an atrioventricular septum defect (AVCD) with normally related great vessels were grouped. Then, cases involving left or right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOT or RVOT) with normally related great vessels were grouped. The remaining cases were grouped together and consisted of infants with an isolated atrial septum defect or a pulmonary vein anomaly (ASPV). To test which characteristics were associated with diagnostic rGS results, multiple variable logistic regression was performed. Infants born AGA and LGA were grouped together because all four LGA infants had nondiagnostic rGS results. CHD categorization was excluded from the regression because no diagnostic rGS results were found in infants with AVCD and RVOT anomalies. Family history was similarly excluded as no individuals with diagnostic results had a known family history of CHD. Analyses were made using RStudio (version 2022.02.0).31 Author TH had full access to all data in the study and takes responsibility for its integrity and the data analysis.

## Results

Individuals were recruited from June 2020 through March 2022. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age at testing was 7.5 (5.3) days. The cohort consisted of 48 infants (Table 1) including 17 females and 31 males. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics, except in birth weight for gestational age (P = 0.003 by chi-square test). Six (46.2%) infants with diagnostic rGS results were born SGA, while only two (5.7%) infants with nondiagnostic rGS infants were born SGA. The median (IQR) gestational age was 38.0 (2.0) weeks, and the median (IQR) birth weight was 2857.5 (785.0) g. Extracardiac anomalies were present in 38 (79.2%) infants. Cardiac lesions were categorized as ASPV (n = 4 (8.3%)), AVCD (n = 2 (4.2%)), CTD (n = 20 (41.7%)), LAT (n = 7 (14.6%)), LVOT (n = 13 (27.1%)), and RVOT (n = 2 (4.2%)) (Table 2). In five cases (10.4%) there was a family history of CHD. Seven infants (14.6%) died prior to CNICU discharge, 24 (50.0%) were discharged home, nine (18.8%) were transferred to rehabilitation facilities, and eight (16.7%) were transferred to other institutions following surgery and postoperative care.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/16/2022.12.16.22283479/T1)

Table 1. 
Characteristics of 48 infants with congenital heart disease.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/16/2022.12.16.22283479/T2)

Table 2. 
Cardiac anomalies in 48 infants.

Genetic disorders were diagnosed in 13 (27.1%) infants, 12 of which related to CHD and one which was a secondary diagnosis (Table 3). These diagnoses consisted of nine single gene disorders four CNVs, including three diagnoses of cat eye syndrome. One infant had dual CNV diagnoses. Of the 14 distinct genetic disorders, all but two were *de novo* variants. The secondary diagnosis was autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease in a family with a known history of polycystic kidney disease. This individual was also found to have a *de novo* variant of uncertain significance in *SMAD6*, which might contribute to the cardiac phenotype and facial dysmorphisms. No significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of infants with diagnostic as compared to those with nondiagnostic rGS results, except for birth weight for gestational age (Table 1). SGA birth occurred in six (46.2%) infants with diagnostic rGS, as compared to two (5.7%) with nondiagnostic results. LGA birth was not found in infants with diagnostic rGS, whereas it occurred in four (11.4%) of infants with nondiagnostic rGS. Multiple variable logistic regression was performed to test whether any individual characteristics were associated with diagnostic rGS results when controlling for other characteristics. This demonstrated that SGA birth was strongly associated with the presence of a genetic disorder (adjusted OR of 93.77 (95% CI = 6.60, 7684.49); P-Value 0.007) (Figure 1).

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/16/2022.12.16.22283479/T3)

Table 3. 
Cases with Diagnostic rGS results.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/16/2022.12.16.22283479/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/16/2022.12.16.22283479/F1)

Figure 1. 
Multiple variable logistic regression for the association of characteristics with diagnostic rGS results. Input variables consisted of sex, gestation (term or preterm), birth weight (appropriate, small, or large for gestational age (AGA, LGA, or SGA) the presence of extracardiac anomalies, and disposition. The adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) and Bonferroni-corrected P-value are shown. Only SGA birth was found to have a significant association with diagnostic rGS results.

Management changes that resulted from rGS results occurred in eight of 13 (61.5%) cases. These changes included referral to subspecialists from other disciplines (ophthalmology, pulmonology, and neurology) for treatment and screening for manifestations associated with genetic disorders, tailoring of medical therapy, and surveillance for metabolic decompensation. The subspeciality service to which referrals were most often made was ophthalmology. The four infants referred for ophthalmologic evaluations were each found to have eye disease related to their genetic disorders, which led to interventions in three cases including corrective glasses for refractive error and patching for strabismus. In two cases, rGS results enabled the CNICU team to redirect goals of care and avoid intensive, futile measures. In each case with a genetic disorder, parents were counseled regarding the nature and prognosis of their child’s diagnosis, as well as risk of recurrence in future pregnancies.

## Discussion

Infants with genetic disorders often exhibit limited, nonspecific phenotypes.1,12 Prompt genetic diagnosis may predict future manifestations and inform clinical decisions and clinical management. Our investigation demonstrated that rapidly providing genetic diagnoses altered the care of infants with CHD. We demonstrated that a multidisciplinary team of neonatologists, cardiologists, geneticists, and genetic counselors were able to identify individuals likely to benefit from testing, to return results in approximately one week, and to inform the clinical care of most infants with diagnostic results. Timely diagnoses made by rGS helped tailor of goals of care for two families. In these cases, definitive diagnoses enabled providers and families to avoid interventions which would have been intensive, costly, futile, or inconsistent with a family’s desired long-term goals. Timely genetic diagnoses also facilitated referral to subspecialists (most often ophthalmologists) and subsequent clinical diagnosis and treatment of eye disease in three cases. Eye disease is often not clinically apparent until later in childhood. Early diagnosis and correction is associated with improved vision that provides more accurate sensory input, supports early brain development, and lowers the risk of lifelong impairment.32

There were several patterns in the diagnoses made in this cohort by rGS. SGA birth was strongly associated with the presence of genetic disorders. Most (11 of 14) genetic disorders were unique to individuals; three cases of total anomalous pulmonary venous connection (TAPVC) were found to have cat eye syndrome (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man Phenotype 115470) caused by mosaic supernumerary marker chromosome containing material from 22q11. The overall diagnostic heterogeneity was consistent with previous descriptions of the genetic architecture of CHD being caused by many genetic disorders.33 Cat eye syndrome often includes CHD, typically VSDs;34 however, TAPVC has recently been described in infants with cat eye syndrome.35,36 Genetic disorders included nine single gene (monogenic) disorders and four CNVs, highlighting the utility of rGS to diagnose both variant classes in a single test. Most (12 of 13) individuals with confirmed molecular genetic diagnoses had extracardiac anomalies. The full phenotypic spectrum of this cohort is difficult to assess as many extracardiac features, such as developmental delays, are not apparent until later in life.18 Family history of CHD was not associated with diagnostic rGS, and most (12 of 14) molecular diagnoses/variants were *de novo. De novo* variants are one of the most frequently recognized genetic causes of CHD.33

In addition to the clinical utility of a genetic diagnosis, utility was noted in non-diagnostic results. For example, the clinical team was concerned about the possibility of alveolar capillary dysplasia (ACD) in an infant with respiratory failure. Nondiagnostic rGS results in this case lowered ACD in the team’s differential and helped clarify attention on other disease processes.

There were several important limitations to this study. This study excluded individuals with known prenatal molecular genetic diagnoses. At our institution, genetic testing for structural anomalies is frequently performed prenatally.37 Therefore, this cohort was biased to include postnatal diagnoses, cases with prenatal care outside our medical center, and families that declined prenatal testing. Our CNICU serves as a regional referral center for complex CHD. Therefore, this cohort was also biased towards severe forms of CHD. The size of this cohort and these biases limit generalization. Finally, while we demonstrated change in clinical care using rGS, we have not yet assessed other outcomes such as length of hospitalization or economic impact, long term clinical outcomes, and psychosocial impact on parents/families and compared them to a control group.

Our model of care relied on empowering providers from multiple disciplines to work collaboratively. Neonatologists were able to nominate cases directly for rGS with genetic counselors integrated into daily rounds to identify appropriate cases and quickly conduct pretest counseling. Including genetic counselors in the cardiac neonatology team provided opportunities for reciprocal education and optimization of clinical genetic services. Finally, medical geneticists were able to focus their efforts more intensively on posttest counseling, specifically in those cases with a molecular diagnosis. This cooperative model enabled providers from each discipline to operate within their specialized skill set and led to a more efficient use of their limited time and this expensive diagnostic resource. Close involvement of geneticists and genetic counselors also demonstrates how providers from other disciplines may gain a better understanding of the application, benefits, and limitations of genome sequencing in a specific clinical context.39 Our model also demonstrates an equitable delivery of genomic medicine. As a regional referral center, our CNICU provides care to a broad population, disproportionately representative of underserved communities. In addition to efficiently bundling the services of highly specialized physicians, surgeons, and genetic counselors, care at our center facilitated an economy of scale that made resource-intensive rGS testing (including adequate pre- and posttest counseling) possible.

In summary, we report on implementation of rGS in infants with CHD. We found that rGS provided molecular diagnoses in 27.1% (13 of 48) of cases in approximately seven days and led to changes in clinical management in 61.5% (eight of 13) of diagnoses. In two cases rGS diagnoses helped determine goals of care and avoid intensive interventions which were futile or inconsistent with families’ goals. In three cases rGS diagnoses led to early treatment of eye disease. These findings demonstrate that clinicians should strongly consider rGS for infants presenting with CHD, especially those born SGA. Our study identified important areas for further research. We plan to evaluate the parental experience of rGS diagnostics in CHD and compare prenatal to early postnatal testing experiences. Long-term follow-up is warranted to evaluate the clinical utility of rGS to improve cardiac outcomes and to screen for and prevent extracardiac manifestations, specifically early neurodevelopmental interventions. Finally, given the extraordinary costs associated with care of infants with severe CHD (including surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, specialized nursing care, and providers from multiple disciplines), research is needed to assess the health economics of rGS for infants with CHD.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

## Acknowledgements, Sources of Funding, and Disclosures

## Sources of Funding

TH is supported by a Thrasher Research Fund Early Career Award, 20-4614.

## Disclosures

Wendy Chung is on the Board of Directors of Prime Medicine.

## Acknowledgements

none

*   Received December 16, 2022.
*   Revision received December 16, 2022.
*   Accepted December 16, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  1.Hays T, Wapner RJ. Genetic testing for unexplained perinatal disorders. Current opinion in pediatrics. 2021;33:195–202. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000999
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MOP.0000000000000999&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Willig LK, Petrikin JE, Smith LD, Saunders CJ, Thiffault I, Miller NA, Soden SE, Cakici JA, Herd SM, Twist G, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for identification of Mendelian disorders in critically ill infants: A retrospective analysis of diagnostic and clinical findings. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2015;3:377–387. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00139-3
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00139-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25937001&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

3.  3.Zhu X, Petrovski S, Xie P, Ruzzo EK, Lu Y-F, McSweeney KM, Ben-Zeev B, Nissenkorn A, Anikster Y, Oz-Levi D, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic diseases: interpreting 119 trios. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2015;17:774–781. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.191
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2014.191&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25590979&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

4.  4.Meng L, Pammi M, Saronwala A, Magoulas P, Ghazi AR, Vetrini F, Zhang J, He W, Dharmadhikari AV, Qu C, et al. Use of exome sequencing for infants in intensive care units ascertainment of severe single-gene disorders and effect on medical management. JAMA Pediatrics. 2017;171:1–10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3438
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3438&link_type=DOI) 

5.  5.French CE, Delon I, Dolling H, Sanchis-Juan A, Shamardina O, Mégy K, Abbs S, Austin T, Bowdin S, Branco RG, et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals that genetic conditions are frequent in intensively ill children. Intensive Care Medicine. 2019;45:627–636. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05552-x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-019-05552-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

6.  6.Saunders CJ, Miller NA, Soden SE, Dinwiddie DL, Noll A, Alnadi NA, Andraws N, Patterson MLA, Krivohlavek LA, Fellis J, et al. Rapid whole-genome sequencing for genetic disease diagnosis in neonatal intensive care units. Science Translational Medicine. 2012;4. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004041
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6InNjaXRyYW5zbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI0LzE1NC8xNTRyYTEzNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzE2LzIwMjIuMTIuMTYuMjIyODM0NzkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

7.  7.Kingsmore SF, Cakici JA, Clark MM, Gaughran M, Feddock M, Batalov S, Bainbridge MN, Carroll J, Caylor SA, Clarke C, et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Analytic and Diagnostic Performance of Singleton and Trio, Rapid Genome and Exome Sequencing in Ill Infants. American journal of human genetics. 2019;105:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.08.009
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.08.009&link_type=DOI) 

8.  8.van Diemen CC, Kerstjens-Frederikse WS, Bergman KA, de Koning TJ, Sikkema-Raddatz B, van der Velde JK, Abbott KM, Herkert JC, Löhner K, Rump P, et al. Rapid Targeted Genomics in Critically Ill Newborns. Pediatrics. 2017;140. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2854
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1542/peds.2016-2854&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28939701&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

9.  9.Petrikin JE, Cakici JA, Clark MM, Willig LK, Sweeney NM, Farrow EG, Saunders CJ, Thiffault I, Miller NA, Zellmer L, et al. The NSIGHT1-randomized controlled trial: Rapid whole-genome sequencing for accelerated etiologic diagnosis in critically ill infants. npj Genomic Medicine. 2018;3:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41525-018-0045-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41525-018-0045-8&link_type=DOI) 

10. 10.Cakici JA, Dimmock DP, Caylor SA, Gaughran M, Clarke C, Triplett C, Clark MM, Kingsmore SF, Bloss CS. A Prospective Study of Parental Perceptions of Rapid Whole-Genome and -Exome Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants. American journal of human genetics. 2020;107:953–962. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.10.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.10.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

11. 11.Farnaes L, Hildreth A, Sweeney NM, Clark MM, Chowdhury S, Nahas S, Cakici JA, Benson W, Kaplan RH, Kronick R, et al. Rapid whole-genome sequencing decreases infant morbidity and cost of hospitalization. npj Genomic Medicine. 2018;3. doi: 10.1038/s41525-018-0049-4
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41525-018-0049-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29644095&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

12. 12.Clark MM, Stark Z, Farnaes L, Tan TY, White SM, Dimmock D, Kingsmore SF. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing and chromosomal microarray in children with suspected genetic diseases. npj Genomic Medicine. 2018;3:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41525-018-0053-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41525-018-0053-8&link_type=DOI) 

13. 13.Inoue S, Mangat C, Rafe’e Y, Sharman M. Forme Fruste of HLH (haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis): diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. BMJ Case Rep. 2015;2015. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2014-206190
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6ImNhc2VyZXBvcnRzIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjI2OiIyMDE1L2phbjI5XzEvYmNyMjAxNDIwNjE5MCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzE2LzIwMjIuMTIuMTYuMjIyODM0NzkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

14. 14.Khoshnood B, Lelong N, Houyel L, Thieulin AC, Jouannic JM, Magnier S, Delezoide AL, Magny JF, Rambaud C, Bonnet D, et al. Prevalence, timing of diagnosis and mortality of newborns with congenital heart defects: a population-based study. Heart. 2012;98:1667–1673. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302543
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiaGVhcnRqbmwiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6Ijk4LzIyLzE2NjciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMi8xNi8yMDIyLjEyLjE2LjIyMjgzNDc5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

15. 15.Gelb BD, Chung WK. Complex genetics and the etiology of human congenital heart disease. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine. 2014;4. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a013953
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNzaHBlcnNwZWN0bWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiI0LzcvYTAxMzk1MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzE2LzIwMjIuMTIuMTYuMjIyODM0NzkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

16. 16.van der Linde D, Konings EE, Slager MA, Witsenburg M, Helbing WA, Takkenberg JJ, Roos-Hesselink JW. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2241–2247. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.025
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czo0OiJhY2NqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI1OC8yMS8yMjQxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMTYvMjAyMi4xMi4xNi4yMjI4MzQ3OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

17. 17.Richter F, Morton SU, Kim SW, Kitaygorodsky A, Wasson LK, Chen KM, Zhou J, Qi H, Patel N, DePalma SR, et al. Genomic analyses implicate noncoding de novo variants in congenital heart disease. Nature Genetics. 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-0652-z
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41588-020-0652-z&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

18. 18.Homsy J, Zaidi S, Shen Y, Ware JS, Samocha KE, Karczewski KJ, Depalma SR, McKean D, Wakimoto H, Gorham J, et al. De novo mutations in congenital heart disease with neurodevelopmental and other congenital anomalies. Science. 2015;350:1262–1266.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNTAvNjI2NS8xMjYyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMTYvMjAyMi4xMi4xNi4yMjI4MzQ3OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

19. 19.Gelb B, Brueckner M, Chung W, Goldmuntz E, Kaltman J, Kaski JP, Kim R, Kline J, Mercer-Rosa L, Porter G, et al. The Congenital Heart Disease Genetic Network Study: rationale, design, and early results. Circ Res. 2013;112:698–706. doi: 10.1161/circresaha.111.300297
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImNpcmNyZXNhaGEiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTEyLzQvNjk4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMTYvMjAyMi4xMi4xNi4yMjI4MzQ3OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

20. 20.Donofrio MT, Moon-Grady AJ, Hornberger LK, Copel JA, Sklansky MS, Abuhamad A, Cuneo BF, Huhta JC, Jonas RA, Krishnan A, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of fetal cardiac disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:2183–2242. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000437597.44550.5d
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiIxMjkvMjEvMjE4MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzE2LzIwMjIuMTIuMTYuMjIyODM0NzkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

21. 21.Wren C, Irving CA, Griffiths JA, O’Sullivan JJ, Chaudhari MP, Haynes SR, Smith JH, Hamilton JR, Hasan A. Mortality in infants with cardiovascular malformations. Eur J Pediatr. 2012;171:281–287. doi: 10.1007/s00431-011-1525-3
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00431-011-1525-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21748291&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

22. 22.Sweeney NM, Nahas SA, Chowdhury S, Batalov S, Clark M, Caylor S, Cakici J, Nigro JJ, Ding Y, Veeraraghavan N, et al. Rapid whole genome sequencing impacts care and resource utilization in infants with congenital heart disease. npj Genomic Medicine. 2021;6:29. doi: 10.1038/s41525-021-00192-x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41525-021-00192-x&link_type=DOI) 

23. 23.Krishnamurthy G, Ratner V, Bacha E. Neonatal cardiac care, a perspective. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu. 2013;16:21–31. doi: 10.1053/j.pcsu.2013.01.007
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.pcsu.2013.01.007&link_type=DOI) 

24. 24.Goldshtrom N, Vasquez A, Chaves DV, Bateman D, Kalfa D, Levasseur S, Torres A, Bacha E, Krishnamurthy G. Outcomes after neonatal cardiac surgery: the impact of a dedicated neonatal cardiac program. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2022. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.06.013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.06.013)
    
    

25. 25.DePristo MA, Banks E, Poplin R, Garimella KV, Maguire JR, Hartl C, Philippakis AA, del Angel G, Rivas MA, Hanna M, et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat Genet. 2011;43:491–498. doi: 10.1038/ng.806
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.806&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21478889&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000289972600023&link_type=ISI) 

26. 26.Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, Kantarci S, Kearney H, Patel A, Raca G, Ritter DI, South ST, Thorland EC, et al. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Genet Med. 2020;22:245–257. doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0686-8
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41436-019-0686-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31690835&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

27. 27.Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, Grody WW, Hegde M, Lyon E, Spector E, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: A joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genetics in Medicine. 2015;17:405–424. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2015.30&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25741868&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

28. 28.Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C, Evans JP, Herman GE, Hufnagel SB, Klein TE, Korf BR, et al. ACMG Statement Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update ( ACMG SF v2 . 0 ): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. 2017;19. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.190
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2016.190&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27854360&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

29. 29.Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-13-59
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2431-13-59&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23601190&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

30. 30.Hoang TT, Goldmuntz E, Roberts AE, Chung WK, Kline JK, Deanfield JE, Giardini A, Aleman A, Gelb BD, Mac Neal M, et al. The Congenital Heart Disease Genetic Network Study: Cohort description. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0191319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191319
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0191319&link_type=DOI) 

31. 31.Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.; Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
    
    

32. 32.Wallace DK, Repka MX, Lee KA, Melia M, Christiansen SP, Morse CL, Sprunger DT. Amblyopia Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:P105–p142. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.10.008
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.10.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

33. 33.Jin SC, Homsy J, Zaidi S, Lu Q, Morton S, Depalma SR, Zeng X, Qi H, Chang W, Sierant MC, et al. Contribution of rare inherited and de novo variants in 2,871 congenital heart disease probands. Nature Genetics. 2017;49:1593–1601. doi: 10.1038/ng.3970
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.3970&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28991257&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

34. 34.Rosias PR, Sijstermans JM, Theunissen PM, Pulles-Heintzberger CF, De Die-Smulders CE, Engelen JJ, Van Der Meer SB. Phenotypic variability of the cat eye syndrome. Case report and review of the literature. Genet Couns. 2001;12:273–282.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11693792&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F16%2F2022.12.16.22283479.atom) 

35. 35.Chen CP, Ko TM, Chen YY, Su JW, Wang W. Prenatal diagnosis and molecular cytogenetic characterization of mosaicism for a small supernumerary marker chromosome derived from chromosome 22 associated with cat eye syndrome. Gene. 2013;527:384–388. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2013.05.061
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.gene.2013.05.061&link_type=DOI) 

36. 36.Williams JL, McDonald MT, Seifert BA, Deak KL, Rehder CW, Campbell MJ. An Unusual Association: Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Return and Aortic Arch Obstruction in Patients with Cat Eye Syndrome. J Pediatr Genet. 2021;10:35–38. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1701020
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1055/s-0039-1701020&link_type=DOI) 

37. 37.Petrovski S, Aggarwal V, Giordano JL, Stosic M, Wou K, Bier L, Spiegel E, Brennan K, Stong N, Jobanputra V, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2019;3931:758–767. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32042-7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32042-7&link_type=DOI)