- Pediatric Cardiology
Clinical Instructor, Pediatrics - Cardiology
Fellowship: UCSF Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship (2021) CA
Board Certification: American Board of Pediatrics, Pediatrics (2018)
Residency: UCSF Fresno Pediatric Residency (2018) CA
Board Certification: Royal College of Paediatrics, Pediatrics (2014)
Medical Education: Cardiff University School of Medicine (2010) United Kingdom
The Effect of Size and Asymmetry at Birth on Brain Injury and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Congenital Heart Disease.
Poor and asymmetric fetal growth have been associated with neonatal brain injury (BI) and worse neurodevelopmental outcomes (NDO) in the growth-restricted population due to placental insufficiency. We tested the hypothesis that postnatal markers of fetal growth (birthweight (BW), head circumference (HC), and head to body symmetry) are associated with preoperative white matter injury (WMI) and NDO in infants with single ventricle physiology (SVP) and d-transposition of great arteries (TGA). 173 term newborns (106 TGA; 67 SVP) at two sites had pre-operative brain MRI to assess for WMI and measures of microstructural brain development. NDO was assessed at 30 months with the Bayley Scale of Infant Development-II (n = 69). We tested the association between growth parameters at birth with the primary outcome of WMI on the pre-operative brain MRI. Secondary outcomes included measures of NDO. Newborns with TGA were more likely to have growth asymmetry with smaller heads relative to weight while SVP newborns were symmetrically small. There was no association between BW, HC or asymmetry and WMI on preoperative brain MRI or with measures of microstructural brain development. Similarly, growth parameters at birth were not associated with NDO at 30 months. In a multivariable model only cardiac lesion and site were associated with NDO. Unlike other high-risk infant populations, postnatal markers of fetal growth including head to body asymmetry that is common in TGA is not associated with brain injury or NDO. Lesion type appears to play a more important role in NDO in CHD.
View details for DOI 10.1007/s00246-021-02798-5
View details for PubMedID 34853878
Correcting for prematurity affects developmental test scores in infants born late and moderately preterm.
Early human development
2016; 94: 1-6
Corrected age is typically applied when assessing the development of children born <32 weeks of gestation. There is no consensus as to whether corrected age should be applied when assessing children born late/moderately preterm (LMPT; 32-36 weeks of gestation).This study explored the impact of corrected age on developmental test scores in infants born LMPT.221 LMPT infants were assessed at two years corrected age using the Bayley-III cognitive and language scales, from which cognitive and language composite scores were derived (Normative Mean 100; SD 15). Assessments were then re-scored using chronological age. Bayley-III composite scores <80 were used to define developmental delay. Paired sample t-tests were used to assess the difference in mean test scores derived using corrected versus chronological age, and McNemar's tests to assess the difference in the proportion of infants with developmental delay using corrected versus chronological age.Mean corrected age scores were significantly higher than chronological age scores (cognitive: 2.1 points; 95% CI 1.6, 2.5; language 2.5; 95% CI 2.1, 2.8). Overall, significantly more LMPT infants were classified with developmental delay when chronological (18.3%) versus corrected (15.0%) age was used (p=0.016).Correcting for prematurity results in significantly higher developmental test scores and a significantly lower prevalence of developmental delay in LMPT infants and may affect eligibility for intervention services. Researchers and clinicians should be aware that the use of corrected age may impact on developmental test scores at both an individual and population level among infants born LMPT.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.01.002
View details for PubMedID 26826320
- Accounting for deaths in neonatal trials: is there a correct approach? Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition 2015; 100 (3): F193-7
Clinical characteristics of people experiencing biochemical hypoglycaemia during an oral glucose tolerance test: cross-sectional analyses from a UK multi-ethnic population.
Diabetes research and clinical practice
2014; 104 (3): 427-34
People who experience biochemical hypoglycaemia during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) may be insulin resistant, but this has not been investigated robustly, therefore we examined this in a population-based multi-ethnic UK study.Cross-sectional data from 6478 diabetes-free participants (849 with fasting insulin data available) who had an OGTT in the ADDITION-Leicester screening study (2005-2009) were analysed. People with biochemical hypoglycaemia (2-h glucose <3.3mmol/l) were compared with people with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) or impaired glucose regulation (IGR) using regression methods.359 participants (5.5%) had biochemical hypoglycaemia, 1079 (16.7%) IGR and 5040 (77.8%) NGT. Biochemical hypoglycaemia was associated with younger age (P<0.01), white European ethnicity (P<0.001), higher HDL cholesterol (P<0.01), higher insulin sensitivity (P<0.05), and lower body mass index (P<0.001), blood pressure (P<0.01), fasting glucose (P<0.001), HbA1C (P<0.01), and triglycerides (P<0.01) compared with NGT and IGR separately in both unadjusted and adjusted (age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status) models.Biochemical hypoglycaemia during an OGTT in the absence of diabetes or IGR was not associated with insulin resistance, but instead appeared to be associated with more favourable glycaemic risk profiles than IGR and NGT. Thus, clinicians may not need to intervene due to biochemical hypoglycaemia on a 2-h OGTT.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.02.013
View details for PubMedID 24685116
Child consent and the law: an insight and discussion into the law relating to consent and competence.
Child: care, health and development
2007; 33 (1): 78-82
The law governing consent for children is not very clear. A child can consent to treatment but usually in practice is unable to refuse it. Even if both the child and parents refuse treatment, courts are reluctant to accept this, particularly if it is in the best interest of the child.In order to consent to treatment, a child must be competent enough to do so, and this competence is judged usually by a doctor. Children can even consent to contraceptives and abortion if 'competent' to do so. This concept perfectly lacks moral, ethical and emotional competence, and judgement of competence is carried out usually purely scientifically by pure science-orientated objective professionals like doctors. A broad discussion about the issues of children refusing treatment is conducted from the legal, ethical and philosophical point of view. Life-saving treatment and various other cases are also discussed.There is no right answer to the question. A more holistic approach is needed, and not only doctors but also sociologists, care specialists and even clergymen should be asked to judge competence in a multidisciplinary environment, particularly for contraceptives and abortion. This multidisciplinary working can be extended to other areas in medical law as well particularly in light of changes in medicine. Experience in life should be valued in a decision-making environment for judging competence. The law in relation to child consent is unclear and requires changes in order to clarify what is perceived as the child's best interest.
View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00641.x
View details for PubMedID 17181756