Startseite Ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops: a predictor of perinatal mortality
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops: a predictor of perinatal mortality

  • Su Ah Kim , Seung Mi Lee EMAIL logo , Joon-Seok Hong , JoonHo Lee , Chan-Wook Park , Byoung Jae Kim , Kyo Hoon Park , Joong Shin Park und Jong Kwan Jun
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 15. Mai 2014

Abstract

Aim: To develop an ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops in order to predict perinatal outcomes in women with non-immune hydrops.

Methods: The study population consisted of pregnant women who were admitted and delivered with the diagnosis of fetal non-immune hydrops and singleton gestation. Cases were divided into “perinatal survivor” and “perinatal non-survivor” groups. Perinatal non-survivor cases were defined as those with stillbirth or neonatal death ≤28 completed days after birth. The presence of an abnormal fluid collection in each body compartment, such as subcutaneous edema, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, or ascites was assigned a score of 1 point per each body compartment, and the absence of abnormal fluid collection was scored as 0 point. The total number of abnormal fluid collections was converted to a numeric score, which was called the ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops (USNIH).

Results: Perinatal death occurred in 46.5% (20/43) of the cases of non-immune hydrops. USNIH in patients of the non-survivor group was significantly higher than that in those of the survivor group [non-survivor group 3 (2–4) vs. survivor 2 (2–3); median (range); P<0.05]. Perinatal mortality rates were higher in patients with USNIH ≥3 points than in those with USNIH of 2 points (67% vs. 13%, P<0.005). This difference remained significant after adjustment for confounding variables. When confining analysis to those with idiopathic non-immune hydrops, women in the perinatal non-survivor group had significantly higher USNIH score than those in the perinatal survivor group, and this difference remained significant after adjustment.

Conclusions: Our USNIH system may be a reliable predictive marker for perinatal outcomes in cases of non-immune hydrops, especially in idiopathic hydrops during the antenatal period.


Corresponding author: Seung Mi Lee, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, (425 Shindaebang-Dong) 41, Boramae-Gil, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul 156-707, Republic of Korea, Tel.: +82-2-870-2346, Fax: +82-2-831-2826, E-mail: ; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sohee Oh, PhD, of the Department of Biostatistics at the Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, for statistical advice.

References

[1] Abrams ME, Meredith KS, Kinnard P, Clark RH. Hydrops fetalis: a retrospective review of cases reported to a large national database and identification of risk factors associated with death. Pediatrics. 2007;120:84–9.10.1542/peds.2006-3680Suche in Google Scholar

[2] ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 102: management of stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:748–61.10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819e9ee2Suche in Google Scholar

[3] Bellini C, Hennekam RC, Fulcheri E, Rutigliani M, Morcaldi G, Boccardo F, et al. Etiology of nonimmune hydrops fetalis: a systematic review. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A:844–51.10.1002/ajmg.a.32655Suche in Google Scholar

[4] Castillo RA, Devoe LD, Hadi HA, Martin S, Geist D. Nonimmune hydrops fetalis: clinical experience and factors related to a poor outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;155:812–6.10.1016/S0002-9378(86)80026-6Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Fukushima K, Morokuma S, Fujita Y, Tsukimori K, Satoh S, Ochiai M, et al. Short-term and long-term outcomes of 214 cases of non-immune hydrops fetalis. Early Hum Dev. 2011;87:571–5.10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.04.015Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Harman CR, Bowman JM, Manning FA, Menticoglou SM. Intrauterine transfusion-intraperitoneal versus intravascular approach: a case-control comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;162:1053–9.10.1016/0002-9378(90)91314-3Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Jones DC. Nonimmune fetal hydrops: diagnosis and obstetrical management. Semin Perinatol. 1995;19:447–61.10.1016/S0146-0005(05)80052-7Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Khositseth A, Ramin KD, O’Leary PW, Porter CJ. Role of amiodarone in the treatment of fetal supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and hydrops fetalis. Pediatr Cardiol. 2003;24:454–6.10.1007/s00246-002-0337-7Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Machin GA. Hydrops revisited: literature review of 1414 cases published in the 1980s. Am J Med Genet. 1989;34:366–90.10.1002/ajmg.1320340313Suche in Google Scholar

[10] McCoy MC, Katz VL, Gould N, Kuller JA. Non-immune hydrops after 20 weeks’ gestation: review of 10 years’ experience with suggestions for management. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85: 578–82.10.1016/0029-7844(94)00444-ISuche in Google Scholar

[11] Nakayama H, Kukita J, Hikino S, Nakano H, Hara T. Long-term outcome of 51 liveborn neonates with non-immune hydrops fetalis. Acta Paediatr. 1999;88:24–8.10.1111/j.1651-2227.1999.tb01262.xSuche in Google Scholar

[12] Santo S, Mansour S, Thilaganathan B, Homfray T, Papageorghiou A, Calvert S, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of non-immune hydrops fetalis: what do we tell the parents? Prenat Diagn. 2011;31:186–95.10.1002/pd.2677Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Simpson JH, McDevitt H, Young D, Cameron AD. Severity of non-immune hydrops fetalis at birth continues to predict survival despite advances in perinatal care. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2006;21:380–2.10.1159/000092469Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Smoleniec J, James D. Predictive value of pleural effusions in fetal hydrops. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1995;10:95–100.10.1159/000264213Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Sohan K, Carroll SG, De La Fuente S, Soothill P, Kyle P. Analysis of outcome in hydrops fetalis in relation to gestational age at diagnosis, cause and treatment. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:726–30.10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080008726.xSuche in Google Scholar

[16] Suwanrath-Kengpol C, Kor-anantakul O, Suntharasaj T, Leetanaporn R. Etiology and outcome of non-immune hydrops fetalis in southern Thailand. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59:134–7.10.1159/000082997Suche in Google Scholar

[17] Takayasu H, Kitano Y, Kuroda T, Morikawa N, Tanaka H, Fujino A, et al. Successful management of a large fetal mediastinal teratoma complicated by hydrops fetalis. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45:e21–4.10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.08.055Suche in Google Scholar

[18] Wafelman LS, Pollock BH, Kreutzer J, Richards DS, Hutchison AA. Nonimmune hydrops fetalis: fetal and neonatal outcome during 1983–1992. Biol Neonate. 1999;75:73–81.10.1159/000014080Suche in Google Scholar

[19] Weiner CP. Umbilical pressure measurement in the evaluation of nonimmune hydrops-fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:817–23.10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90827-3Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Whitecar PW, Moise KJ, Jr. Sonographic methods to detect fetal anemia in red blood cell alloimmunization. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2000;55:240–50.10.1097/00006254-200004000-00024Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2013-8-8
Accepted: 2014-4-10
Published Online: 2014-5-15
Published in Print: 2015-1-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Academy’s Corner
  3. Maternal mortality: an ongoing challenge to perinatal medicine
  4. Fetal mild ventriculomegaly: still a challenging problem
  5. Review article
  6. Natural killer cell in the developing life
  7. Original articles – Obstetrics
  8. Clinical chorioamnionitis at term I: microbiology of the amniotic cavity using cultivation and molecular techniques
  9. Individual consultant practice does not affect the overall intervention rate: a 6-year study
  10. Identifying high-risk subgroups for alcohol consumption among younger and older pregnant women
  11. Ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops: a predictor of perinatal mortality
  12. Controversial clinical practices for patients with preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome: a survey
  13. Inter- and intra-observer variability in cervical measurement by ultrasound in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy: does it matter?
  14. Personnel-itis: a myth or a pathology? A retrospective analysis of obstetrical and perinatal outcomes for physicians and nurses
  15. Placenta-secreted circulating markers in pregnant women with obstructive sleep apnea
  16. Variations of blood cells in prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus
  17. Peripartum cardiomyopathy – risk factors, characteristics and long-term follow-up
  18. Original article – Fetus
  19. Effect of assisted reproductive technology on fetal brain development assessed by prenatal ultrasonography
  20. Original article – Newborn
  21. Racial/ethnic differences in the birth prevalence of congenital anomalies in the United States
  22. Short Communication
  23. Postnatal kidney maturation regulates renal artery myogenic constriction
  24. Letters to the Editor
  25. Ebola viral infection in pregnancy: a plea for specific clinical recommendations
  26. Magnesium may provide further benefit to hypothermia following perinatal asphyxia encephalopathy
  27. Congress Calendar
  28. Congress Calendar
Heruntergeladen am 1.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2013-0208/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen