Fetal Doppler: How to Keep it Safe?

Liability, risks, and recommendations for ultrasound use in the diagnosis of obstetrics diseases

This literature review will summarize the liability issues, risks, and ultrasound recommendations for diagnosing obstetrics diseases. One liability issue is related to misdiagnosis or failure to detect abnormalities during an ultrasound examination. Ultrasound images can be subjective interpretations, and errors may occur due to factors such as operator skill, equipment limitations, or fetal positioning. Another liability concern is related to the potential adverse effects of ultrasound exposure on both the mother and fetus. While extensive research has shown that diagnostic ultrasound is generally safe when used appropriately, there are still uncertainties regarding long-term effects. Some studies suggest a possible association between prolonged or excessive exposure to ultrasound waves and adverse outcomes such as low birth weight, developmental delays, or hearing impairment. Additionally, obtaining informed consent from patients is crucial in mitigating liability risks. Patients should be informed about the purpose of the ultrasound examination, its benefits, limitations, potential risks (even if minimal), and any alternative diagnostic options available. This ensures that patients know the procedure and can make informed decisions about their healthcare. Proper documentation helps establish a clear record of the care provided and can serve as evidence in any legal disputes.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Second and Third Trimester Screening for Fetal Anomaly

The Appropriateness Criteria for the imaging screening of second and third trimester fetuses for anomalies are presented for fetuses that are low risk, high risk, have had soft markers detected on ultrasound, and have had major anomalies detected on ultrasound. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Noninvasive determination of the fetal cardiac interatrial pressure gradients by Doppler ultrasonography: preliminary results

Objective: In 2000, Johnson et al. measured the atrial pressures puncturing the atria invasively in 19 fetuses that will be terminated. In this study, it is aimed to define the fetal cardiac interatrial pressure gradient noninvasively. The pressure gradients were calculated using the ductus venosus (DV) and pulmonary vein (PV) blood flow velocities and Bernoulli equation for flowing fluids.Methods: "S," "a," and the time-averaged maximum velocities in both veins of 246 fetuses were used in the simplified Bernoulli equation; Δp=4 ([Formula: see text]). Additionally, the umbilical vein maximum velocity is measured in order to calculate ducto-umbilical pressure gradient.Results: The average interatrial pressure gradient was biggest in the ventricular systole and the least gradient was in the atrial systole of a cardiac cycle. The pressure gradient changes throughout the second and the third trimester have four periods with two increases and two decreases.Conclusions: The interatrial and ducto-umbilical pressure gradients can be measured noninvasively in order to follow the hemodynamic of the fetal circulatory system.

Factors associated with the timing of the first prenatal ultrasound in Canada

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with the timing of the first prenatal ultrasound in Canada.

Methods

This was a secondary data analysis of the Maternity Experiences Survey, a cross-sectional survey covering different aspects of pregnancy, labour, birth and the post-partum period. Bivariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were performed to assess the relationship between timing of first prenatal ultrasound and different independent variables.

Results

68.4% of Canadian women received an optimally timed first prenatal ultrasound, 27.4% received early ultrasounds and 4.3% received late ultrasound. The highest prevalence of early ultrasound was in Ontario (33.3%) and the lowest was in Manitoba (13.3%). The highest prevalence of late ultrasound was found in Manitoba (12.1%) and the lowest was in British Columbia and Ontario (3.5% each). The highest prevalence of optimal timing of first prenatal ultrasound was in Quebec (77%) and the lowest was in Ontario (63.2%). Factors influencing the timing of ultrasound included: Early – maternal age < 20 (adjusted OR = 0.54, 95%CI:0.34–0.84), alcohol use during pregnancy (adjusted OR = 0.69, 95%CI:0.53–0.90), history of premature birth (adjusted OR = 1.41, 95%CI:1.06–1.89), multiparity (adjusted OR = 0.67, 95%CI:0.57–0.78), born outside of Canada (adjusted OR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.67–0.99), prenatal care in Newfoundland and Labrador (adjusted OR = 1.66, 95%CI:1.20–1.30), Nova Scotia (adjusted OR = 1.68, 95%CI:1.25–2.28), Ontario (adjusted OR = 2.16, 95%CI:1.76–2.65), Saskatchewan (adjusted OR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.05–2.14), Alberta (adjusted OR = 1.37, 95%CI:1.05–1.77) British Columbia (adjusted OR = 1.90, 95%CI:1.45–2.50) and Manitoba (adjusted OR = 0.66, 95%CI:0.45–0.98) Late – unintended pregnancy (adjusted OR = 1.89, 95%CI:1.38–2.59), born outside of Canada (adjusted OR = 1.75, 95%CI:1.14–2.68), prenatal care in Manitoba (adjusted OR = 2.88, 95%CI:1.64–5.05) and the Territories (adjusted OR = 4.50, 95%CI:2.27–8.93). An interaction between history of miscarriage and having ‘other’ prenatal care provider significantly affected timing of ultrasound (adjusted OR = 0.31, 95%CI:0.14–0.66).

Conclusion

Only 68% of Canadian women received an optimally timed prenatal ultrasound which was influenced by several factors including province of prenatal care, maternal age and country of birth, and an interaction effect between prenatal care provider and history of miscarriage. These findings establish a baseline of factors influencing the timing of prenatal ultrasound in Canada, which can be built upon by future studies.

Point of Care Ultrasound: A WFUMB Position Paper

Over the last decade, the use of portable ultrasound scanners has enhanced the concept of point of care ultrasound (PoC-US), namely, "ultrasound performed at the bedside and interpreted directly by the treating clinician." PoC-US is not a replacement for comprehensive ultrasound, but rather allows physicians immediate access to clinical imaging for rapid and direct solutions. PoC-US has already revolutionized everyday clinical practice, and it is believed that it will dramatically change how ultrasound is applied in daily practice. However, its use and teaching are different from continent to continent and from country to country. This World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology position paper discusses the current status and future perspectives of PoC-US. Particular attention is given to the different uses of PoC-US and its clinical significance, including within emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, anesthesiology, rheumatology, obstetrics, neonatology, gynecology, gastroenterology and many other applications. In the future, PoC-US will be more diverse than ever and be included in medical student training.

Fetal imaging: Executive summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop

Given that practice variation exists in the frequency and performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development hosted a workshop to address indications for ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy, to discuss when and how often these studies should be performed, to consider recommendations for optimizing yield and cost-effectiveness and to identify research opportunities. This article is the executive summary of the workshop.

Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop

Given that practice variation exists in the frequency and performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pregnancy, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development hosted a workshop to address indications for ultrasound and MRI in pregnancy, to discuss when and how often these studies should be performed, to consider recommendations for optimizing yield and cost effectiveness, and to identify research opportunities. This article is the executive summary of the workshop.

Benefits and risks of ultrasound in pregnancy

Ultrasound is, arguably, the most commonly used diagnostic procedure in obstetrics. It is convenient, painless, yields immediate, extensive results, and is widely considered to be safe. Some (but not all) benefits described in the literature have been validated by evidence-based analysis, such as pregnancy dating. Others are considered clinically useful, although objective evidence may be less strong. As is the case with almost any medical procedure, however, its performance carries some risks: misdiagnosis on the one hand and possible undesired effects on the other. The general belief exists that diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) does not pose any risk to the pregnant patient nor to her fetus. Nonetheless, ultrasound is a form of energy and, as such, demonstrates effects in biological tissues it traverses (bioeffects). The physical mechanisms responsible for these effects are thermal or non-thermal (mechanical). It is the role of science to show whether any of these bioeffects may be harmful. A risk-benefit analysis may also be important, as well as education of the end users to assure patients' safety.