A Heart With Half Its Pump: What New Research Says About the First Week of a Baby's Life

Four recent studies on hypoplastic left heart syndrome, from the last scan before birth to the choice of first operation

Hypoplastic left heart syndrome means a baby is born with the left side of the heart too small to pump blood around the body. Four recent studies examine the decisions made in the first days of life — whether to open a wall inside the heart before birth, which day to operate, and what to do for the smallest and sickest babies. Together they suggest that a baby's overall condition matters more than the precise shape of the heart.

What the condition is, and why so much rides on the first week

In a healthy heart, the right side sends blood to the lungs and the left side sends it out to the body. In hypoplastic left heart syndrome, the left side never grows properly, so the right side has to do both jobs. That is possible for a while, because a natural blood vessel called the ductus arteriosus, open in every newborn, lets blood reach the body. But the ductus normally closes in the first days of life. A medicine called prostaglandin keeps it open, which buys time — and that time is what the first operation is for.

The usual first operation, the Norwood, rebuilds the aorta and rearranges the plumbing so that the strong right ventricle becomes the pump for the whole body. Two more operations follow, at around four to six months and again at two to four years. Almost every question a family faces in the first week — when to operate, whether to operate at all, whether anything can be done before birth — is a question about this first stage. The four studies described here — from a fetal heart programme in Toronto [1], a surgical centre in New York [2], [3], and a national database covering 65 American hospitals [4] — each take up one of those questions.

How families and doctors used to face this problem

Within living memory, hypoplastic left heart syndrome was uniformly fatal. The Norwood operation, first described in 1983, changed that [5], although for many years survival of the operation itself was the only realistic goal. As results improved, attention shifted to the months in between operations [6]. Surgeons then spent a decade arguing about which of two small tubes should carry blood to the lungs after the Norwood, and a large study of 549 babies at 15 hospitals across North America — the Single Ventricle Reconstruction (SVR) trial — finally compared them head to head [7]. One tube looked better at one year, but by six years the difference had vanished [8].

That was a turning point in how the field thought. If the choice of tube did not decide a child's future, something else did — and much of it turned out to be happening at home, in the interval between the first and second operations, where deaths were more common than anyone had realised [9]. Hospitals across the United States responded by teaching families to weigh their baby daily and check oxygen levels at home, and survival in that gap improved measurably [10]. Those home-monitoring programmes are now standard practice [11]. One group of babies, though, never shared in the improvement: those born with an extra problem inside the heart, which is where the newest of these four studies begins.

The wall inside the heart, and what a scan can see before birth

Between the two upper chambers of the heart there is normally a small opening. In babies with this syndrome, blood coming back from the lungs has to cross through that opening to reach the right side. If the opening is narrow or closed, blood backs up into the lungs before birth, and the delicate lymphatic vessels there become permanently swollen and leaky. Doctors have known since 1999 that this damage is already done by the time the baby is born [12], which is why some centres try to open the wall while the baby is still in the womb — a procedure first reported two decades ago [13] and tracked since then in an international registry [14].

A team at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto has now reviewed twenty years of these pregnancies: 54 fetuses with this combination, scanned first at around 24 weeks [1]. Three findings stand out. First, the left upper chamber was small in 80% of them and stretched in only 4% — the opposite of what textbooks long implied. That matters practically, because a small chamber is harder to reach with a needle or catheter, and because a small chamber can still be under dangerously high pressure.

Second, an ordinary Doppler ultrasound measurement of blood flow in the lung veins predicted whether an MRI would show the swollen lymphatic vessels. Fetal MRI is available in very few hospitals; Doppler is available in most. So a simple scan can tell a local team when to send a family on to a specialist centre.

Third, the procedure to open the wall before birth did change the blood flow — flow improved markedly in the twelve fetuses who had it, while it drifted slightly worse in the 42 who did not — and the lung changes improved on repeat MRI in three of the five babies who had scans before and after. But this did not translate into more babies surviving. Of the 17 babies born alive whose families chose active treatment, 37.3% had died by six months, whether or not they had the fetal procedure. And the procedure carries real risk: four of 15 attempts were followed by the baby dying during the procedure or within a day of it. Families considering it deserve both halves of that picture.

Why the exact shape of the heart matters less than once thought

For years, one particular pattern — a completely closed aortic valve together with a narrowed mitral valve — was taught as the worst version of the condition. A team at Columbia University in New York tested this in 219 babies operated on between 2006 and 2023 [2]. It made no difference. Survival, need for transplant, heart-muscle function and valve function were all the same as in other patterns.

What did make a difference was how well the right ventricle and its valve were working before the operation, and whether the child had a genetic syndrome or a problem in another organ. In other words: the label on the diagnosis matters less than the condition of the particular baby. For parents, this is quietly reassuring. Being told your child has "the bad kind" is not the sentence it once sounded like.

Choosing the day of the operation

Surprisingly, no guideline says which day the Norwood should be done. The same New York group looked at 203 babies and found that the day itself seemed to matter [3]. Babies operated on between the third and fifth day of life had roughly half the risk of dying, needing a transplant or spending an unusually long time in intensive care, compared with babies operated on other days. After the fourth day, each extra day of waiting was linked to a 34% higher risk.

This finding needs care in the reading, and the authors say so. It comes from one hospital, and it looks backwards at records rather than forwards at a plan. A baby who is unwell is both more likely to have surgery delayed and more likely to do badly afterwards, so some of the pattern may reflect how sick the babies were rather than the calendar. Still, it is the first real evidence on a question every team faces, and the authors are calling for a larger study across many hospitals to settle it.

When the big operation is not the first step

Some babies are too small, too premature or too unwell for open-heart surgery in their first days. For them, surgeons can place bands on the two arteries to the lungs, a much smaller operation, and keep the ductus open either with a stent or with continued prostaglandin medicine. This "hybrid" approach was developed as a way to buy time [15].

A study using a national American database of 2,423 babies at 65 hospitals compared the two hybrid versions with the standard Norwood [4]. Survival to one year was 81% after a Norwood, 66% after the stent version and 56% after the medicine version. Read on its own, that looks damning. But the babies who got the medicine version were, on average, a pound lighter at birth, three weeks less mature, and four times as likely to have a pile-up of serious problems before any operation. When the researchers accounted for how unwell the babies were, the two hybrid approaches performed the same as each other. The honest summary is that the hybrid is chosen for the babies who are already in the most trouble.

It also usually turns out to be a bridge rather than a destination: of the babies followed, 56% went on to have the full Norwood operation a few weeks later, and just under half were alive at one year without needing a transplant.

What this means for your family

Three practical things follow. If a scan before birth shows narrow flow in the lung veins, ask whether referral to a fetal cardiac centre is possible — that measurement is the signal that matters. If your baby has been labelled with a "high-risk" anatomy, ask instead how the right ventricle and its valve are working, because that is the question the evidence now says predicts more. And if the team proposes a hybrid rather than a Norwood, ask what the plan is afterwards, because for most babies it is a step rather than an endpoint.

It is also worth saying plainly that the decision to go ahead with any of this — or not to — is a genuine choice, made differently by different families, and one that thoughtful clinicians treat as an ethical question rather than a technical one [16]. Whatever is decided, the strain on parents through these weeks is real, and there is more on that in our companion article on mental health for parents in the NICU.

What researchers are working on next

The biggest open question is whether opening the wall before birth, done earlier or in better-selected pregnancies, can change survival and not just blood flow. The second is whether the timing finding holds up when tested across many hospitals — a study the authors have explicitly called for. A third is why hospitals differ so much: use of the medicine hybrid ranged from none at all to 82% of babies depending on the centre, which suggests that local habit, not just the baby in front of the team, is shaping decisions. And underneath all of it sits detection: none of these choices exists unless the condition is found before birth, and prenatal detection is still uneven [17]. Perhaps the most important work of all is the long-term kind, following children to school age to ask not only whether they survived but how they are actually doing [18] — which is, in the end, the question families are asking from the first day.

References

  1. Dannesbo S, Ho G, Seed M, et al. Fetal Diagnosis of Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome With Restrictive Atrial Septum—Atrial Septal Morphology, Associated Lung Disease and Outcomes. Prenat Diagn. 2026;46(2):183–192. doi:10.1002/pd.70000 ↩
  2. Cordoves EM, Ramos-Lemos G, LaSala VR, et al. Impact of hypoplastic left heart syndrome anatomic subtype on mortality, ventricular function, and atrioventricular valve function in the current era. JTCVS Open. 2026;29:101420. doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2025.08.014 ↩
  3. Beqaj H, LaSala VR, Jackman S, et al. Impact of age at Norwood surgery on pre–stage II outcomes in neonates with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. JTCVS Open. 2026;29:101550. doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2025.101550 ↩
  4. Beauchamp DN, Statile CJ, Zang H, et al. Use and Outcomes of the Medical Hybrid Procedure For Stage 1 Palliation in Infants With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome and Variants. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(21):e040740. doi:10.1161/JAHA.124.040740 ↩
  5. Norwood WI, Lang P, Hansen DD. Physiologic repair of aortic atresia–hypoplastic left heart syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1983;308(1):23–26. doi:10.1056/NEJM198301063080106 ↩
  6. Feinstein JA, Benson DW, Dubin AM, et al. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: current considerations and expectations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(1 Suppl):S1–S42. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.09.022 ↩
  7. Ohye RG, Sleeper LA, Mahony L, et al. Comparison of shunt types in the Norwood procedure for single-ventricle lesions. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1980–1992. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0912461 ↩
  8. Newburger JW, Sleeper LA, Gaynor JW, et al. Transplant-free survival and interventions at 6 years in the SVR trial. Circulation. 2018;137(21):2246–2253. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029375 ↩
  9. Ghanayem NS, Allen KR, Tabbutt S, et al. Interstage mortality after the Norwood procedure: results of the multicenter Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(4):896–906. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.020 ↩
  10. Anderson JB, Beekman RH 3rd, Kugler JD, et al. Improvement in interstage survival in a national pediatric cardiology learning network. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(4):428–436. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.001956 ↩
  11. Rudd NA, Ghanayem NS, Hill GD, et al. Interstage home monitoring for infants with single ventricle heart disease: education and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(16):e014548. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.014548 ↩
  12. Rychik J, Rome JJ, Collins MH, DeCampli WM, Spray TL. The hypoplastic left heart syndrome with intact atrial septum: atrial morphology, pulmonary vascular histopathology and outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(2):554–560. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00225-9 ↩
  13. Marshall AC, van der Velde ME, Tworetzky W, et al. Creation of an atrial septal defect in utero for fetuses with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and intact or highly restrictive atrial septum. Circulation. 2004;110(3):253–258. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000135471.17922.17 ↩
  14. Moon-Grady AJ, Morris SA, Belfort M, et al. International Fetal Cardiac Intervention Registry: a worldwide collaborative description and preliminary outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(4):388–399. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.037 ↩
  15. Galantowicz M, Cheatham JP, Phillips A, et al. Hybrid approach for hypoplastic left heart syndrome: intermediate results after the learning curve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(6):2063–2070. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.02.009 ↩
  16. Železnik M, Grošelj U, Fister P. Ethical considerations and multidisciplinary care for pediatric patients with hypoplastic left heart syndrome: a narrative review with a systematic search. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025;12:1641337. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1641337 ↩
  17. Quartermain MD, Pasquali SK, Hill KD, et al. Variation in prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease in infants. Pediatrics. 2015;136(2):e378–e385. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3783 ↩
  18. Goldberg CS, Hu C, Brosig C, et al. Behavior and quality of life at 6 years for children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatrics. 2019;144(5):e20191010. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-1010 ↩