Risk Assessment at 11-14-Week Antenatal Visit: A Tertiary Referral Center Experience from South India

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations

BACKGROUND

Prenatal ultrasound is widely used to screen for structural anomalies before birth. While this is traditionally done in the second trimester, there is an increasing use of first-trimester ultrasound for early detection of lethal and certain severe structural anomalies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in detecting fetal structural anomalies before 14 and 24 weeks' gestation in low-risk and unselected pregnant women and to compare the current two main prenatal screening approaches: a single second-trimester scan (single-stage screening) and a first- and second-trimester scan combined (two-stage screening) in terms of anomaly detection before 24 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) from 1 January 1997 to 22 July 2022. We limited our search to studies published after 1997 and excluded animal studies, reviews and case reports. No further restrictions were applied. We also screened reference lists and citing articles of each of the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they included low-risk or unselected pregnant women undergoing a first- and/or second-trimester fetal anomaly scan, conducted at 11 to 14 or 18 to 24 weeks' gestation, respectively. The reference standard was detection of anomalies at birth or postmortem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently undertook study selection, quality assessment (QUADAS-2), data extraction and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach). We used univariate random-effects logistic regression models for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies covering 7,057,859 fetuses (including 25,202 with structural anomalies) were included. No study was deemed low risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Main methodological concerns included risk of bias in the reference standard domain and risk of partial verification. Applicability concerns were common in studies evaluating first-trimester scans and two-stage screening in terms of patient selection due to frequent recruitment from single tertiary centres without exclusion of referrals. We reported ultrasound accuracy for fetal structural anomalies overall, by severity, affected organ system and for 46 specific anomalies. Detection rates varied widely across categories, with the highest estimates of sensitivity for thoracic and abdominal wall anomalies and the lowest for gastrointestinal anomalies across all tests. The summary sensitivity of a first-trimester scan was 37.5% for detection of structural anomalies overall (95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1 to 44.3; low-certainty evidence) and 91.3% for lethal anomalies (95% CI 83.9 to 95.5; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.9 to 100; low-certainty evidence). Two-stage screening had a combined sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 74.7 to 90.1; low-certainty evidence), while single-stage screening had a sensitivity of 50.5% (95% CI 38.5 to 62.4; very low-certainty evidence). The specificity of two-stage screening was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 100; low-certainty evidence) and for single-stage screening, it was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2 to 100; moderate-certainty evidence). Indirect comparisons suggested superiority of two-stage screening across all analyses regarding sensitivity, with no significant difference in specificity. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to the absence of direct comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A first-trimester scan has the potential to detect lethal and certain severe anomalies with high accuracy before 14 weeks' gestation, despite its limited overall sensitivity. Conversely, two-stage screening shows high accuracy in detecting most fetal structural anomalies before 24 weeks' gestation with high sensitivity and specificity. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 fetuses, the first-trimester scan is expected to correctly identify 113 out of 124 fetuses with lethal anomalies (91.3%) and 665 out of 1776 fetuses with any anomaly (37.5%). However, 79 false-positive diagnoses are anticipated among 98,224 fetuses (0.08%). Two-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 1448 out of 1776 cases of structural anomalies overall (83.8%), with 118 false positives (0.1%). In contrast, single-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 896 out of 1776 cases before 24 weeks' gestation (50.5%), with 205 false-positive diagnoses (0.2%). This represents a difference of 592 fewer correct identifications and 88 more false positives compared to two-stage screening. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding the additional benefits of two-stage versus single-stage screening, as there are no studies directly comparing them. Moreover, the evidence supporting the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound and two-stage screening approaches primarily originates from studies conducted in single tertiary care facilities, which restricts the generalisability of the results of this meta-analysis to the broader population.

First-trimester ultrasound detection of fetal heart anomalies: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound at 11-14 weeks' gestation in the detection of fetal cardiac abnormalities and to evaluate factors that impact the detection rate.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in the detection of fetal cardiac anomalies at 11-14 weeks' gestation, performed by two independent reviewers. An electronic search of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and The Cochrane Library) was conducted for studies published between January 1998 and July 2020. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating pregnancies at any prior level of risk and in any healthcare setting were eligible for inclusion. The reference standard used was the detection of a cardiac abnormality on postnatal or postmortem examination. Data were extracted from the included studies to populate 2 × 2 tables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model in order to determine the performance of first-trimester ultrasound in the detection of major cardiac abnormalities overall and of individual types of cardiac abnormality. Data were analyzed separately for high-risk and non-high-risk populations. Preplanned secondary analyses were conducted in order to assess factors that may impact screening performance, including the imaging protocol used for cardiac assessment (including the use of color-flow Doppler), ultrasound modality, year of publication and the index of sonographer suspicion at the time of the scan. Risk of bias and quality assessment were undertaken for all included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 4108 citations. Following review of titles and abstracts, 223 publications underwent full-text review, of which 63 studies, reporting on 328 262 fetuses, were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. In the non-high-risk population (45 studies, 306 872 fetuses), 1445 major cardiac anomalies were identified (prevalence, 0.41% (95% CI, 0.39-0.43%)). Of these, 767 were detected on first-trimester ultrasound examination of the heart and 678 were not detected. First-trimester ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity of 55.80% (95% CI, 45.87-65.50%), specificity of 99.98% (95% CI, 99.97-99.99%) and positive predictive value of 94.85% (95% CI, 91.63-97.32%) in the non-high-risk population. The cases diagnosed in the first trimester represented 63.67% (95% CI, 54.35-72.49%) of all antenatally diagnosed major cardiac abnormalities in the non-high-risk population. In the high-risk population (18 studies, 21 390 fetuses), 480 major cardiac anomalies were identified (prevalence, 1.36% (95% CI, 1.20-1.52%)). Of these, 338 were detected on first-trimester ultrasound examination and 142 were not detected. First-trimester ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity of 67.74% (95% CI, 55.25-79.06%), specificity of 99.75% (95% CI, 99.47-99.92%) and positive predictive value of 94.22% (95% CI, 90.22-97.22%) in the high-risk population. The cases diagnosed in the first trimester represented 79.86% (95% CI, 69.89-88.25%) of all antenatally diagnosed major cardiac abnormalities in the high-risk population. The imaging protocol used for examination was found to have an important impact on screening performance in both populations (P < 0.0001), with a significantly higher detection rate observed in studies using at least one outflow-tract view or color-flow Doppler imaging (both P < 0.0001). Different types of cardiac anomaly were not equally amenable to detection on first-trimester ultrasound.

CONCLUSIONS

First-trimester ultrasound examination of the fetal heart allows identification of over half of fetuses affected by major cardiac pathology. Future first-trimester screening programs should follow structured anatomical assessment protocols and consider the introduction of outflow-tract views and color-flow Doppler imaging, as this would improve detection rates of fetal cardiac pathology. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Can risk prediction models help us individualise stillbirth prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of published risk models

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth prevention is an international priority - risk prediction models could individualise care and reduce unnecessary intervention, but their use requires evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To identify risk prediction models for stillbirth, and assess their potential accuracy and clinical benefit in practice.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, Embase, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to June 2019 using terms relevant to stillbirth, perinatal mortality and prediction models. The search was compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies developing and/or validating prediction models for risk of stillbirth developed for application during pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, using the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias was appraised using the PROBAST tool.

RESULTS

The search identified 2751 citations. Fourteen studies reporting development of 69 models were included. Variables consistently included were: ethnicity, body mass index, uterine artery Doppler, pregnancy-associated plasma protein and placental growth factor. For almost all models there were significant concerns about risk of bias. Apparent model performance (i.e. in the development dataset) was highest in models developed for use later in pregnancy and including maternal characteristics, and ultrasound and biochemical variables, but few were internally validated and none were externally validated.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all models identified were at high risk of bias. There are first-trimester models of possible clinical benefit in early risk stratification; these require validation and clinical evaluation. There were few later pregnancy models but, if validated, these could be most relevant to individualised discussions around timing of birth.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Prediction models using maternal factors, blood tests and ultrasound could individualise stillbirth prevention, but existing models are at high risk of bias.