Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol ; 58(6): 892-899, 2021 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33836119

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the interobserver reproducibility of fetal ultrasound biometric and amniotic-fluid measurements in the third trimester of pregnancy, according to maternal body mass index (BMI) category. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of women with a singleton gestation beyond 34 weeks, recruited into four groups according to BMI category: normal (18.0-24.9 kg/m2 ), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2) , obese (30.0-39.9 kg/m2 ) and morbidly obese (≥ 40 kg/m2 ). Multiple pregnancies, women with diabetes and pregnancies with a fetal growth, structural or genetic abnormality were excluded. In each woman, fetal biometric (biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference, abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL) and estimated fetal weight) and amniotic-fluid (amniotic-fluid index (AFI) and maximum vertical pocket (MVP)) measurements were obtained by two experienced sonographers or physicians, blinded to gestational age and each other's measurements. Differences in measurements between observers were expressed as gestational age-specific Z-scores. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's reliability coefficient (CRC) were calculated. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of reproducibility. RESULTS: In total, 110 women were enrolled prospectively (including 1320 measurements obtained by 17 sonographers or physicians). Twenty (18.2%) women had normal BMI, 30 (27.3%) women were overweight, 30 (27.3%) women were obese and 30 (27.3%) women were morbidly obese. Except for AFI (ICC, 0.65; CRC, 0.78) and MVP (ICC, 0.49; CRC, 0.66), all parameters had a very high level of interobserver reproducibility (ICC, 0.72-0.87; CRC, 0.84-0.93). When assessing reproducibility according to BMI category, BPD measurements had a very high level of reproducibility (ICC ≥ 0.85; CRC > 0.90) in all groups. The reproducibility of AC and FL measurements increased with increasing BMI, while the reproducibility of MVP measurements decreased. Among the biometric parameters, the difference between the BMI categories in measurement-difference Z-score was significant only for FL. Interobserver differences for biometric measurements fell within the 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: Obesity does not seem to impact negatively on the reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of fetal biometric parameters when undertaken by experienced sonographers or physicians who commonly assess overweight, obese and morbidly obese women. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.


Asunto(s)
Líquido Amniótico/diagnóstico por imagen , Biometría/métodos , Índice de Masa Corporal , Obesidad Materna/diagnóstico por imagen , Ultrasonografía Prenatal/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Femenino , Edad Gestacional , Humanos , Obesidad/diagnóstico por imagen , Obesidad/fisiopatología , Obesidad Materna/fisiopatología , Obesidad Mórbida/diagnóstico por imagen , Obesidad Mórbida/fisiopatología , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Sobrepeso/diagnóstico por imagen , Sobrepeso/fisiopatología , Embarazo , Tercer Trimestre del Embarazo , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Método Simple Ciego
2.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol ; 56(5): 705-716, 2020 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31614030

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of different follow-up strategies for non-obese and obese women who had incomplete fetal cardiac screening for major congenital heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Three decision-analytic models, one each for non-obese, obese and Class-III-obese women, were developed to compare five follow-up strategies for initial suboptimal fetal cardiac screening. The five strategies were: (1) no follow-up ultrasound (US) examination but direct referral to fetal echocardiography (FE); (2) one follow-up US, then FE if fetal cardiac views were still suboptimal; (3) up to two follow-up US, then FE if fetal cardiac views were still suboptimal; (4) one follow-up US and no FE; and (5) up to two follow-up US and no FE. The models were designed to identify fetuses with major CHD in a theoretical cohort of 4 000 000 births in the USA. Outcomes related to neonatal mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were evaluated. A cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Base-case and sensitivity analysis and Monte-Carlo simulation were performed. RESULTS: In our base-case models for all body mass index (BMI) groups, no follow-up US, but direct referral to FE led to the best outcomes, detecting 7%, 25% and 82% more fetuses with CHD in non-obese, obese and Class-III-obese women, respectively, compared with the baseline strategy of one follow-up US and no FE. However, no follow-up US, but direct referral to FE was above the US$100 000/QALY threshold and therefore not cost-effective. The cost-effective strategy for all BMI groups was one follow-up US and no FE. Both up to two follow-up US with no FE and up to two follow-up US with FE were dominated (being more costly and less effective), while one follow-up US with FE was over the cost-effectiveness threshold. One follow-up US and no FE was the optimal strategy in 97%, 93% and 86% of trials in Monte-Carlo simulation for non-obese, obese and Class-III-obese models, respectively. CONCLUSION: For both non-obese and obese women with incomplete fetal cardiac screening, the optimal CHD follow-up screening strategy is no further US and immediate referral to FE; however, this strategy is not cost-effective. Considering costs, one follow-up US and no FE is the preferred strategy. For both obese and non-obese women, Monte-Carlo simulations showed clearly that one follow-up US and no FE was the optimal strategy. Both non-obese and obese women with initial incomplete cardiac screening examination should therefore be offered one follow-up US. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


Asunto(s)
Cuidados Posteriores/economía , Ecocardiografía/economía , Corazón Fetal/diagnóstico por imagen , Obesidad Materna/diagnóstico por imagen , Ultrasonografía Prenatal/economía , Adulto , Cuidados Posteriores/métodos , Índice de Masa Corporal , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Corazón Fetal/embriología , Cardiopatías Congénitas/diagnóstico por imagen , Cardiopatías Congénitas/economía , Cardiopatías Congénitas/embriología , Humanos , Lactante , Mortalidad Infantil , Recién Nacido , Método de Montecarlo , Trastornos del Neurodesarrollo/diagnóstico por imagen , Trastornos del Neurodesarrollo/economía , Trastornos del Neurodesarrollo/etiología , Obesidad Materna/fisiopatología , Embarazo , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA