1
|
Buijtendijk MF, Bet BB, Leeflang MM, Shah H, Reuvekamp T, Goring T, Docter D, Timmerman MG, Dawood Y, Lugthart MA, Berends B, Limpens J, Pajkrt E, van den Hoff MJ, de Bakker BS. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 5:CD014715. [PMID: 38721874 PMCID: PMC11079979 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd014715.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/12/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marieke Fj Buijtendijk
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Bo B Bet
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mariska Mg Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Harsha Shah
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Tom Reuvekamp
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Timothy Goring
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Daniel Docter
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Melanie Gmm Timmerman
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Yousif Dawood
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Malou A Lugthart
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Bente Berends
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline Limpens
- Medical Library, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eva Pajkrt
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maurice Jb van den Hoff
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Bernadette S de Bakker
- Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Paediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC - Sophia Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Simons NE, de Ruigh AA, van 't Hooft J, Aarnoudse-Moens CSH, van Wely M, van der Ham DP, van Teeffelen ASP, Roseboom TJ, Mol BW, Leemhuis AG, Pajkrt E. Childhood outcomes after induction of labor or expectant management for preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a 10-year follow-up of the PPROMEXIL trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 228:588.e1-588.e13. [PMID: 36787813 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Revised: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Management of late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks' gestation balances the risks of preterm birth with the risks of infection for both the mother and the neonate. Expectant management to prolong pregnancy showed similar risks of neonatal sepsis, but children at 2 years of age showed more neurodevelopmental delay when compared with induction of labor. Long-term outcomes on child development after 2 years of age are unknown. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of children born after singleton pregnancies complicated by late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes managed by induction of labor in comparison with expectant management. STUDY DESIGN This was a follow-up study of the Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Expectant Management Versus Induction of Labor (PPROMEXIL) trials (randomized controlled trials between 2007 to 2011) evaluating children at 10 to 12 years of age (Netherlands Trial Register 6953). The primary outcomes were cognition, motor function, and behavior as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V-NL, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, and Child Behavior Checklist, respectively. The secondary outcomes were sensory processing, respiratory problems, educational attainment, and general health. Mild delay was defined as -1 standard deviation or corresponding percentile. The relative risk and confidence intervals were calculated using standard methods. RESULTS This follow-up study invited 711 surviving children of the 714 singleton pregnancies randomized in the original trials. In total, 248 (35%) children participated (127 induction of labor, 121 expectant management). Children born after induction of labor had no significant differences in the primary outcomes when compared with those born after expectant management. Mild cognitive delay was observed in 7 of 122 (5.7%) children born after induction of labor in comparison with in 12 of 120 (10.0%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.41). A mild delay in motor function was observed in 42 of 122 (34.4%) children born after induction of labor vs in 55 of 120 (45.8%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.03). Mild abnormal behavior was observed in 37 of 125 (29.6%) children born after induction of labor compared with in 33 of 118 (28.0%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.57). Secondary outcomes were also comparable between the induction of labor and the expectant management groups except that more children born after expectant management had a hospital admission (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89) or a surgery (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.82). CONCLUSION In children born after pregnancies with late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, expectant management did not improve long-term outcomes at 10 to 12 years when compared with induction of labor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noor E Simons
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Annemijn A de Ruigh
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke van 't Hooft
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelieke S H Aarnoudse-Moens
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Neonatology and Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Madelon van Wely
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David P van der Ham
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Augustinus S P van Teeffelen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Grow-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Tessa J Roseboom
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ben W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Aleid G Leemhuis
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Neonatology and Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eva Pajkrt
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Limburg Stirum EVJ, van der Windt LI, van Dijk CE, van Baar AL, Leemhuis AG, van Wely M, de Boer MA, van 't Hooft J, Oudijk MA, Pajkrt E. Pessary or progesterone to prevent preterm birth in women with short cervical length: protocol of the 4-6 year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial (Quadruple-P). BMJ Open 2022; 12:e064049. [PMID: 36002221 PMCID: PMC9413189 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Vaginal progesterone and a cervical pessary are both interventions that are investigated for the prevention of preterm birth (PTB). Thus far, beneficial or harmful effects of these interventions on long-term child health and development are described, but evidence is not robust enough to draw firm conclusions. With this follow-up study, we intent to investigate if progesterone or a pessary is superior for the prevention of PTB considering the child's health at 4-6 years of corrected age. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This study is a follow-up study of the Quadruple-P trial; a multicentre, randomised clinical trial (NL42926.018.13, Eudractnumber 2013-002884-24) which randomises women with an asymptomatic midtrimester short cervix to daily progesterone or a pessary for the prevention of PTB. All children born to mothers who participated in the Quadruple-P study (n=628 singletons and n=332 multiples) will be eligible for follow-up at 4-6 years of corrected age. Children will be assessed using parental questionnaires. Main outcomes are child (neuro)development and behaviour. Other outcomes include child mortality, growth and general health. A composite of adverse child outcomes will be compared between the progesterone and pessary groups reporting OR and the corresponding 95% CI. Analyses will be performed separately for singletons and multiples and using the intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam UMC confirmed that de Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) did not apply to our study (W20_481 #20.531). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with stakeholders and participants. This protocol is published before analysis of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NL9646).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie V J van Limburg Stirum
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Larissa I van der Windt
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Charlotte E van Dijk
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Aleid G Leemhuis
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Neonatology and Paediatrics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Madelon van Wely
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjon A de Boer
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke van 't Hooft
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn A Oudijk
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eva Pajkrt
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction & Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Induction of labour in low-resource settings. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2021; 77:90-109. [PMID: 34509391 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2021] [Revised: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Due to the disparity in resource availability between low- and high-resource settings, practice recommendations relevant to high-income countries are not always relevant and often need to be adapted to low-resource settings. The adaptation applies to induction of labour (IOL) which is an obstetric procedure that deserves special attention because it involves the initiation of a process that requires regular and frequent monitoring of the mother and foetus by experienced healthcare professionals. Lack of problem recognition and/or substandard care during IOL may result in harm with long-term sequelae. In this article, the authors discuss unique challenges such as insufficient resources (including staff, midwives, doctors, equipment, and medications) that result in occasional inadequate patient monitoring and/or delayed interventions during IOL in low-resource settings. We also discuss modifications in indications and methods for IOL, issues related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, the feasibility of outpatient induction, clinical protocols and a minimum dataset for quality improvement projects. Overall, the desire to achieve a vaginal birth with IOL should not cloud the necessity to observe the required safety measures and implement necessary interventions; given that childbirth practices are the major determinants of pregnancy outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Collapse
|