Cent Eur J Public Health 2014, 22(3):147-152 | DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a3893

Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies in Latvia

Irisa Zīle1,2, Anita Villeruša1, Mika Gissler3,4
1 Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Riga Stradin's University, Riga, Latvia
2 Department of Research, Statistics and Health Promotion, Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
3 THL National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland
4 NHV Nordic School of Public Health, Gothenburg, Sweden

Objective: This study provides a description and analysis of characteristics of the monitoring system for congenital anomalies at birth and prevalence trends in Latvia using retrospective analysis of congenital anomalies at birth with cross-sectional data on prevalence (national data from Latvia, 2000-2010).

Methods: There are three main monitoring systems on congenital anomalies among newborns and infants: the Medical Birth Register with data on live births with one or more congenital anomalies at birth, the Register on Congenital Anomalies with genetically approved cases for live births and the National Causes of Death Register with data on stillbirths. Methodological problems were analysed by calculating different prevalence rates. The main outcome measures are as follows: prevalence rate, live birth prevalence rate, major congenital anomalies live birth prevalence rate, and stillbirth rate.

Results: The live birth period prevalence was 319.7/10,000 live births, and the major congenital anomalies live birth prevalence was 211.4/10,000. The period total prevalence rate of births was 323.7/10,000 live births and stillbirths. The stillbirth rate due to congenital anomalies was 6.1/10,000 live and stillbirths. The live birth prevalence with congenital anomalies decreased slightly from the year 2000 to the year 2010.

Conclusions: The present system of congenital anomaly registration requires improvements for better completeness. Latvia should use the experience of Nordic countries and introduce a mother's and children's identification number to the Medical Birth Register. It would be helpful to link the information from hospitals and perinatal centres together to validate the congenital anomaly diagnoses of newborns after their discharge from the maternity unit. The monitoring system should also include information on pregnancies with congenital anomalies which do not end in birth, especially terminations of pregnancy.

Keywords: monitoring system, Medical Birth Register, congenital anomalies at birth, prevalence

Received: March 23, 2013; Revised: March 4, 2014; Accepted: March 4, 2014; Published: September 1, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Zīle I, Villeruša A, Gissler M. Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies in Latvia. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2014;22(3):147-152. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a3893. PubMed PMID: 25438389.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. EUROCAT. Special report: the status of health in the European Union: congenital malformations [Internet]. Newtownabbey: EUROCAT; 2009 [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/Special-Report-Con-Malfs.pdf.
    2. Boyd PA, Haeusler M, Barisic I, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H. Paper 1: The EUROCAT network - organization and processes. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2011 Mar;91 Suppl 1:S2-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Barišić I; EUROCAT Working Group. EUROCAT - epidemiological surveillance of congenital anomalies in Europe. Zdrav Vestn. 2009;78 Suppl 1:175-9.
    4. Christianson A, Howson CP, Modell B. March of dimes: global report on birth defects: the hidden toll of dying and disabled children. White Plains: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 2006.
    5. Boyd PA, Armstrong B, Dolk H, Botting B, Pattenden S, Abramsky L, et al. Congenital anomaly surveillance in England - ascertainment deficiencies in the national system. BMJ. 2005 Jan 1;330(7481):27. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38300.665301.3A. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. The Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Latvia. Statistical yearbook of health care in Latvia 2011 [Internet]. Riga: CDPC; 2012 [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.spkc.gov.lv/veselibasaprupes-statistika/. (In Latvian.)
    7. World Health Organization. Birth defects: report by the Secretariat. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
    8. EURO-PERISTAT; SCPE; EUROCAT; EURONEOSTAT. European perinatal health report: data from 2004. EURO-PERISTAT; 2008.
    9. Khoshnood B, Greenlees R, Loane M, Dolk H; EUROCAT Project Management Committee; EUROCAT Working Group. Paper 2: EUROCAT public health indicators for congenital anomalies in Europe. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2011 Mar;91 Suppl 1:S16-22. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Riley M, Phyland S, Halliday J. Validation study of the Victorian Birth Defects Register. J Paediatr Child Health. 2004 Sep-Oct;40(9-10):544-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Knox EG, Armstrong EH, Lancashire R. The quality of notification of congenital malformations. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1984 Dec;38(4):296-305. Go to original source...
    12. Dutton SJ, Owens JR, Harris F. Ascertainment of congenital malformations: a comparative study of two systems. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991 Dec;45(4):294-8. Go to original source...
    13. Misra T, Dattani N, Majeed A. Evaluation of the National Congenital Anomaly System in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005 Sep;90(5):F368-73. Go to original source...
    14. Mai CT, Law DJ, Mason CA, McDowell BD, Meyer RE, Musa D; National Birth Defects Prevention Network. Collection, use, and protection of population-based birth defects surveillance data in the united states. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2007 Dec;79(12):811-4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Public health strategy for 2011-2017: adopted by Cabinet of Ministers Order No. 504 dated 5 October 2011 [Internet]. Ministry of Health of the Republic of Latvia [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.vm.gov.lv/images/userfiles/public_health_strategy_2011_2017.pdf.
    16. Rules of Cabinet of Ministers No. 611. Obstetric assurance procedures. 21.08.2012. (In Latvian.)
    17. EUROCAT. Malformation coding guides. Coding of EUROCAT subgroups of congenital anomalies [Internet]. Newtownabbey: EUROCAT; 2012 [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/aboutus/datacollection/guidelinesforregistration/malformationcodingguides.
    18. Czeizel AE. Birth defects are preventable. Int J Med Sci. 2005;2(3):91-2. Go to original source...
    19. Larsen H, Nielsen GL, Bendsen J, Flint C, Olsen J, Sørensen HT. Predictive value and completeness of the registration of congenital abnormalities in three Danish population-based registries. Scand J Public Health. 2003;31(1):12-6. Go to original source...
    20. Pētersons A, Ābola Z, VillerušaAet al. Development of algorithms based on modern technologies for diagnostics and treatment of congenital malformations of children for reduction of patient mortality, survival prolongation and improvement of life quality. In: Pīrāgs V, editor. Main diseases threatening the life expectancy and life quality of the Latvian population. Riga: 2009. p. 77-93. (In Latvian.)
    21. Rules of Cabinet of Ministers No. 269. Plan for improving mother and child health for 2012-2014. 19.06.2012. (In Latvian.)
    22. European Health for All Database (HFA-DB) [Internet]. Copenhagen: WHO [updated 2012; cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://data.euro.who.int/hfadb/.
    23. EUROCAT. EUROCAT statistical monitoring report - 2009 [Internet]. Newtownabbey: EUROCAT; 2012 [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/rare_diseases/docs/eurocat_stat_2009_en.pdf.
    24. Honein MA, Paulozzi LJ. Birth defects surveillance: assessing the "gold standard". Am J Public Health. 1999 Aug;89(8):1238-40. Go to original source...
    25. National Health Service. Statistical data 2010 [Internet]. Riga: National Health Service; 2011 [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.vmnvd.gov.lv/lv/33-statistika/statistikas-dati-par-2010-gadu-ieklauts-arisalidzinajums-ar-ieprieksejiem-gadiem. (In Latvian.)
    26. Bird TM, Hobbs CA, Cleves MA, Tilford JM, Robbins JM. National rates of birth defects among hospitalized newborns. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2006 Nov;76(11):762-9.
    27. Wang Y, Caggana M, Sango-Jordan M, Sun M, Druschel CM. Long-term follow-up of children with confirmed newborn screening disorders using record linkage. Genet Med. 2011 Oct;13(10):881-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Loane M, Dolk H, Garne E, Greenlees R; EUROCAT Working Group. Paper 3: EUROCATdata quality indicators for population-based registries of congenital anomalies. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2011 Mar;91 Suppl 1:S23-30. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    29. Latos-Bieleńska A, Materna-Kiryluk A; PRCM Working Group. Polish Registry of Congenital Malformations - aims and organization of the registry monitoring 300 000 births a year. JAppl Genet. 2005;46(4):341-8.
    30. EUROCAT. Joint Action EUROCAT 2011-2013 Funded by the Public Health Programme 2008-2013 of the European Commission [Internet]. Newtownabbey: EUROCAT [cited 2014 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/jointactioneurocat.
    31. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. Annual Report 2011 with data for 2009 [Internet]. Roma: International Centre on Birth Defects - ICBDSR Centre [cited 2014 Feb 25].Available from: http://www.icbdsr.org/filebank/documents/ar2005/Report2011.pdf.

    Return to the content