Isolated intracardiac echogenic focus on routine ultrasound: implications for practice

Correlation between fetal ventricular echogenic foci in pregnancy and fetus chromosomal anomaly: a case-control study in Bandar Abbas city

Background

Ventricular echogenic foci are small structures within the hearts of some fetuses. These small areas result from increased echogenicity in the ventricles of fetuses located near the papillary muscles. An association between these foci and chromosomal abnormalities in fetuses has been reported. Considering that chromosomal abnormalities are a major cause of prenatal death, this study aimed to determine the value of fetal echogenic foci as markers for chromosomal abnormalities.

Materials and methods

Fetal echocardiography was performed by an experienced cardiologist on 149 pregnant women in the second trimester. Of these, 75 were reported to have positive echogenic foci, and 74 were reported to have no echogenic foci. Subsequently, the three chromosomal anomalies including trisomies 21, 18, and 13 were examined. The information of the individuals, including gestational age and echogenic foci, was recorded.

Results

Based on the findings of the present study, seven infants (4.7%) had trisomy 21, four infants (2.7%) had trisomy 13, and six infants (4.1%) had trisomy 18. The mean gestational age of pregnant women with positive and negative echogenic foci was 21.07±3.23 and 21.03±3.09, respectively. No significant relationship was found between ventricular echogenic foci and trisomy 21, 18, or 13.

Conclusion

The present study suggests no significant relation between the presence of echogenic foci and chromosomal trisomies. This finding indicates that additional tests are required to confirm chromosomal abnormalities when echogenic intracardiac foci are present, especially in high-risk fetuses. Moreover, the absence of echogenic focus does not rule out chromosomal disorders.

Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers

BACKGROUND

Some ultrasonic soft markers can be found during ultrasound examination. However, the etiology of the fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers is still unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the genetic etiology and clinical value of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations (CNVs) in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers.

METHODS

Among 1131 fetuses, 729 had single ultrasonic soft marker, 322 had two ultrasonic soft markers, and 80 had three or more ultrasonic soft markers. All fetuses underwent conventional karyotyping, followed by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1131 fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers, 46 had chromosomal abnormalities. In addition to the 46 fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities consistent with the results of the karyotyping analysis, the SNP array identified additional 6.1% (69/1131) abnormal CNVs. The rate of abnormal CNVs in fetuses with ultrasonic soft marker, two ultrasonic soft markers, three or more ultrasonic soft markers were 6.2%, 6.2%, and 5.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the rate of abnormal CNVs among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic abnormalities affect obstetrical outcomes. The SNP array can fully complement conventional karyotyping in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers, improve detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities, and affect pregnancy outcomes.

Indeterminate Prenatal Ultrasounds and Maternal Anxiety: A Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Prenatal ultrasounds often yield indeterminate (incomplete or minor abnormality) findings with limited clinical utility. We evaluate impact of indeterminate findings on maternal anxiety.

METHODS

A single-U.S.-center prospective cohort study administered the Perinatal Anxiety Screening Scale (PASS; control mean = 13.4; > 20 denotes clinically significant anxiety) before and after prenatal ultrasounds in February-May 2017. Ultrasound reports were coded as: normal; indeterminate; or major abnormality. Primary outcome was anxiety after indeterminate vs. normal ultrasounds. Secondary outcomes included anxiety change from pre-to-post-ultrasound and relative to women's characteristics. Linear regression adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Of 286 ultrasounds, 51.0% were normal, 40.5% indeterminate (22.0% incomplete; 18.5% minor abnormality), and 8.0% major abnormalities. Indeterminate findings were unrelated to age, race, parity, infertility, or psychiatric history, but associated with gestational age (26.6%/45.0%/52.5% for first/second/third trimesters; p < 0.001), and obesity (48.8 vs. 37.0%; p = 0.031). Pretest anxiety was highest in second/third trimesters (p = 0.029), and in subjects aged age ≤ 24 or younger(p < 0.001), with a history of anxiety (p < 0.001),) or with prior pregnancy loss (p = 0.011). Mean anxiety score decreased pre-to-posttest across all groups. Indeterminate findings were associated with higher PASS scores than normal findings: pretest 20.1 vs. 16.4 (p = 0.026) and posttest 16.9 vs. 12.2 (p = 0.009; adjusted-p = 0.01). Versus normal ultrasounds, incomplete findings were associated with higher post-ultrasound anxiety (p = 0.007; adjusted-p = 0.01) and smaller decreases from pre-to-posttest (adjusted-p = 0.03), whereas minor abnormalities had higher pretest anxiety (p = 0.029) with larger pre-to-posttest decreases (adjusted-p =0.010).

DISCUSSION

Indeterminate ultrasounds, especially incomplete findings, are associated with significantly higher anxiety than normal findings, suggesting need for evidence-based counseling, management and strategies for decreasing number of indeterminate results.