Report of the Coding Committee of the Association for European Paediatric Cardiology

IN 1999 AND EARLY 2000, THE ASSOCIATION FOR European Paediatric Cardiology published the European Paediatric Cardiac Code as independent but linked Short and Long Lists, containing 650 and 3876 primary terms respectively. The historical background and rationale for development of this coding system has been previously detailed, but essentially it followed a series of meeting of the coding committee of the Association between 1997-1999, during which a pre-existing Long List was adopted and then used to create the condensed Short List. The system was published as the recommended standard coding system for use across Europe, covering the diagnosis and therapy of children with congenital and acquired cardiac disease. The scope of the lists was to encompass the needs of all those involved with such patients, from the fetal cardiologist through to the specialist in adult congenital heart disease; and from the general paediatric cardiologist and cardiac surgeon, to those specialising in transcatheter interventions, paediatric electrophysiology, and paediatric echocardiographers. In addition, the code was crossmapped to the 9th and 10th revisions of the International Classification of Diseases ("ICD-9” and "ICD-10”) provided by the World Health Organisation in order to facilitate returns to central government, a requirement in most countries. In so doing, it was hoped to address the concerns of many centres that such information submitted by professional coding staff was often inaccurate due to the complex nature of congenital cardiac disease, together with the limited scope and vague terminology of the International listing

The nomenclature, definition and classification of discordant atrioventricular connections

Congenitally corrected transposition is a complex cardiac lesion that is often associated with ventricular septal defect, obstruction of the outflow tract of the morphologically left ventricle, and abnormalities of the morphologically tricuspid valve.1,2Nomenclature for this lesion has been variable and confusing.1In this review, we define, and hopefully clarify this terminology. The lesion is a combination of discordant union of the atrial chambers with the ventricles, and the ventricles with the arterial trunks.1,2In rare circumstances, discordant atrioventricular connections can be associated with concordant ventriculo-arterial connections. This malformation has been called "isolated ventricular inversion". The term is less than precise, and the descriptive approach using the phrase "discordant atrioventricular connections with concordant ventriculo-arterial connections" is preferred, as discussed below

The nomenclature, definition and classification of cardiac structures in the setting of heterotaxy

AbstractIn 2000, The International Nomenclature Committee for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease was established. This committee eventually evolved into the International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease. The working component of this international nomenclature society has been The International Working Group for Mapping and Coding of Nomenclatures for Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease, also known as the Nomenclature Working Group. The Nomenclature Working Group created the International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code, which is available for free download from the internet at [http://www.IPCCC.NET].In previous publications from the Nomenclature Working Group, unity has been produced by cross-mapping separate systems for coding, as for example in the treatment of the functionally univentricular heart, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or congenitally corrected transposition. In this manuscript, we review the nomenclature, definition, and classification of heterotaxy, also known as the heterotaxy syndrome, placing special emphasis on the philosophical approach taken by both the Bostonian school of segmental notation developed from the teachings of Van Praagh, and the European school of sequential segmental analysis. The Nomenclature Working Group offers the following definition for the term "heterotaxy": "Heterotaxy is synonymous with 'visceral heterotaxy' and 'heterotaxy syndrome'. Heterotaxy is defined as an abnormality where the internal thoraco-abdominal organs demonstrate abnormal arrangement across the left-right axis of the body. By convention, heterotaxy does not include patients with either the expected usual or normal arrangement of the internal organs along the left-right axis, also known as 'situs solitus', nor patients with complete mirror-imaged arrangement of the internal organs along the left-right axis also known as 'situs inversus'." "Situs ambiguus is defined as an abnormality in which there are components of situs solitus and situs inversus in the same person. Situs ambiguus, therefore, can be considered to be present when the thoracic and abdominal organs are positioned in such a way with respect to each other as to be not clearly lateralised and thus have neither the usual, or normal, nor the mirror-imaged arrangements."The heterotaxy syndrome as thus defined is typically associated with complex cardiovascular malformations. Proper description of the heart in patients with this syndrome requires complete description of both the cardiac relations and the junctional connections of the cardiac segments, with documentation of the arrangement of the atrial appendages, the ventricular topology, the nature of the unions of the segments across the atrioventricular and the ventriculoarterial junctions, the infundibular morphologies, and the relationships of the arterial trunks in space. The position of the heart in the chest, and the orientation of the cardiac apex, must also be described separately. Particular attention is required for the venoatrial connections, since these are so often abnormal. The malformations within the heart are then analysed and described separately as for any patient with suspected congenital cardiac disease. The relationship and arrangement of the remaining thoraco-abdominal organs, including the spleen, the lungs, and the intestines, also must be described separately, because, although common patterns of association have been identified, there are frequent exceptions to these common patterns. One of the clinically important implications of heterotaxy syndrome is that splenic abnormalities are common. Investigation of any patient with the cardiac findings associated with heterotaxy, therefore, should include analysis of splenic morphology. The less than perfect association between the state of the spleen and the form of heart disease implies that splenic morphology should be investigated in all forms of heterotaxy, regardless of the type of cardiac disease. The splenic morphology should not be used to stratify the form of disease within the heart, and the form of cardiac disease should not be used to stratify the state of the spleen. Intestinal malrotation is another frequently associated lesion that must be considered. Some advocate that all patients with heterotaxy, especially those with isomerism of the right atrial appendages or asplenia syndrome, should have a barium study to evaluate for intestinal malrotation, given the associated potential morbidity. The cardiac anatomy and associated cardiac malformations, as well as the relationship and arrangement of the remaining thoraco-abdominal organs, must be described separately. It is only by utilizing this stepwise and logical progression of analysis that it becomes possible to describe correctly, and to classify properly, patients with heterotaxy

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016