Quality assessment of fetal middle cerebral and umbilical artery Doppler images using an objective scale within an international randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the quality of Doppler images of the fetal middle cerebral artery (MCA) and umbilical artery (UA) using an objective scale, and to determine the reliability of this scale, within a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Revealed versus concealed criteria for placental insufficiency in unselected obstetric population in late pregnancy (Ratio37)). METHODS: The Ratio37 trial is an ongoing randomized, open-label, multicenter controlled study of women with a low-risk pregnancy recruited at 20 weeks. Doppler measurements of the fetal MCA and UA were performed at 37 weeks. Twenty patients from each of the six participating centers were selected randomly, with two images evaluated per patient (one each for the MCA and UA). The quality of a total of 240 images was evaluated by six experts, scored on an objective scale of six items. Inter- and intrarater reliability was assessed using the Fleiss-modified kappa statistic for ordinal scales. RESULTS: On average, 89.2% of MCA images and 85.0% of UA images were rated as being of perfect (score of 6) or almost perfect (score of 5) quality. Kappa values for intrarater reliability of quality assessment were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93) for the MCA and UA, respectively. The corresponding inter-rater reliability values were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), respectively. CONCLUSION: The quality of MCA and UA Doppler ultrasound images can be evaluated reliably using an objective scale. Over 85% of images, which were obtained by operators from a broad range of clinical practices within a multicenter study, were rated as being of perfect or almost perfect quality. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of quality assessment was very good. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth.

INTRODUCTION These Guidelines aim to describe appropriate assessment of fetal biometry and diagnosis of fetal growth disorders. These disorders consist mainly of fetal growth restriction (FGR), also referred to as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and often associated with small­for­gestational age (SGA), and large­for­gestational age (LGA), which may lead to fetal macrosomia; both have been associated with a variety of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Screening for, and adequate management of, fetal growth abnormalities are essential components of antenatal care, and fetal ultrasound plays a key role in assessment of these conditions. The fetal biometric parameters measured most commonly are biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur diaphysis length (FL). These biometric measurements can be used to estimate fetal weight (EFW) using various different formulae1. It is important to differentiate between the concept of fetal size at a given timepoint and fetal growth, the latter being a dynamic process, the assessment of which requires at least two ultrasound scans separated in time. Maternal history and symptoms, amniotic fluid assessment and Doppler velocimetry can provide additional information that may be used to identify fetuses at risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Accurate estimation of gestational age is a prerequisite for determining whether fetal size is appropriate­for­gestational age (AGA). Except for pregnancies arising from assisted reproductive technology, the date of conception cannot be determined precisely. Clinically, most pregnancies are dated by the last menstrual period, though this may sometimes be uncertain or unreliable. Therefore, dating pregnancies by early ultrasound examination at 8­14 weeks, based on measurement of the fetal crown­rump length (CRL), appears to be the most reliable method to establish gestational age. Once the CRL exceeds 84 mm, HC should be used for pregnancy dating2­4. HC, with or without FL, can be used for estimation of gestational age from the mid­trimester if a first­trimester scan is not available and the menstrual history is unreliable. When the expected delivery date has been established by an accurate early scan, subsequent scans should not be used to recalculate the gestational age1. Serial scans can be used to determine if interval growth has been normal. In these Guidelines, we assume that the gestational age is known and has been determined as described above, the pregnancy is singleton and the fetal anatomy is normal. Details of the grades of recommendation used in these Guidelines are given in Appendix 1. Reporting of levels of evidence is not applicable to these Guidelines.

Pautas de ISUOG para la práctica: evaluación ecográfica de la biometría y el crecimiento fetal INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo de estas Pautas es describir la evaluación adecuada de la biometría fetal y el diagnóstico de los trastornos del crecimiento fetal. Estos trastornos consisten principalmente en la restricción del crecimiento fetal (RCF), también conocida como restricción del crecimiento intrauterino (RCIU), que a menudo está asociada con un tamaño pequeño para la edad gestacional (PEG) o grande para la edad gestacional (GEG), que pueden dar lugar a la macrosomía fetal; ambos se han asociado con una variedad de resultados maternos y perinatales adversos. La detección y el tratamiento adecuado de las anomalías del crecimiento fetal son componentes esenciales de la atención prenatal, y la ecografía fetal desempeña un papel fundamental en la evaluación de estas afecciones. Los parámetros biométricos fetales medidos con mayor frecuencia son (todas las siglas procedentes del inglés) el diámetro biparietal (BPD), el perímetro cefálico (HC), el perímetro abdominal (AC) y la longitud de la diáfisis del fémur (FL). Estas mediciones biométricas se pueden utilizar para estimar el peso del feto (PEF) mediante fórmulas diferentes1 . Es importante diferenciar entre el concepto de tamaño fetal en un momento dado y el crecimiento fetal en sí, siendo este último un proceso dinámico cuya evaluación requiere al menos dos ecografías separadas en el tiempo. La historia y los síntomas de la madre, la evaluación del líquido amniótico y la velocimetría Doppler pueden proporcionar información adicional que se puede utilizar para identificar los fetos bajo riesgo de resultados adversos del embarazo. La estimación precisa de la edad gestacional es un prerrequisito para determinar si el tamaño del feto es apropiado para la edad gestacional (AEG). Excepto en el caso de los embarazos procedentes de tecnologías de reproducción asistida, la fecha de concepción no se puede determinar con precisión. Clínicamente, la fecha de la mayoría de los embarazos se establece en función del último período menstrual, aunque a veces esto puede ser incierto o poco fiable. Por lo tanto, el fechado de los embarazos mediante ecografía temprana a las 8-14 semanas, mediante la medición de la longitud céfalo-caudal (LCC) fetal, parece ser el método más fiable para establecer la edad gestacional. Una vez que la LCC excede los 84 mm, se debe usar el HC2-4 para establecer la fecha del embarazo. El HC, con o sin FL, se puede utilizar para estimar la edad gestacional a partir de la mitad del primer trimestre si no se dispone de una ecografía del primer trimestre y el historial menstrual no es fiable. Cuando se ha establecido la fecha prevista del parto mediante una exploración temprana precisa, no se deben utilizar exploraciones posteriores para recalcular la edad gestacional1 . Las exploraciones en serie se pueden utilizar para determinar si el intervalo del crecimiento ha sido normal. En estas Pautas se asume que la edad gestacional es conocida y ha sido determinada según lo anterior, que el embarazo es de feto único y que la anatomía fetal es normal. En el Apéndice 1 se detallan los grados de recomendación utilizados en estas Pautas. El informe sobre los niveles de evidencia no es aplicable a estas Pautas.

Neurodevelopmental outcome of fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and apparently normal prenatal and/or postnatal assessment: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and, when feasible, pool, published data regarding the prevalence of childhood neurodevelopmental delay in fetuses with increased first-trimester nuchal translucency (NT), normal karyotype and absence of structural defects or identifiable syndromes. METHODS: MEDLINE and SCOPUS searches using combinations of the terms 'nuchal translucency' AND 'outcome*' were complemented by perusal of the references of the retrieved articles and an additional automated search using the 'search for related articles' PubMed function. Only children with a normal karyotype and no structural defects or syndromic abnormalities were included in the analysis. Between-studies heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: The total prevalence of developmental delay in all 17 studies was 28/2458 (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.79-1.64; I(2) = 57.6%). Eight studies (n = 1567) used NT > 99(th) centile as the cut-off; 15 children (0.96%; 95% CI, 0.58-1.58%) were reported as having developmental delay (I(2) = 72.2%). Four studies (n = 669) used the 95(th) centile as the cut-off for increased NT; seven children (1.05%; 95% CI, 0.51-4.88%) were reported as having developmental delay (I(2) = 29.2%). Five studies used 3.0 mm as the cut-off for increased NT; the pooled rate of developmental delay was six of 222 children (2.70%; 95% CI, 1.24-5.77%; I(2) = 0.0%). CONCLUSION: The rate of neurodevelopmental delay in children with increased fetal NT, a normal karyotype, normal anatomy and no identifiable genetic syndromes does not appear to be higher than that reported for the general population. More large-scale, prospective case-control studies would be needed to enhance the robustness of the results.