Routine prenatal screening during pregnancy

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978074.017

12 - Routine prenatal screening during pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2012

Eileen Y. Wang ,

John Richard Mernagh and

Edited by

Monica Epelman and

Eileen Y. Wang: Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
John Richard Mernagh: Affiliation:
McMaster University Medical Centre
Michael A. Posencheg: Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Haresh Kirpalani: Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Monica Epelman: Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
John Richard Mernagh: Affiliation:
McMaster University, Ontario

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Currently pregnant women in the industrialized parts of the world expect to have an ultrasound of the fetus. There is no clear evidence that ultrasound will decrease perinatal morbidity or mortality in low-risk women [1]. However, the mother's perception is that she will find out if the fetus is “normal” and what the gender is. Often she will bring a partner and/or family members.

Universal ultrasound imaging of all pregnancies has not been officially endorsed, particularly in lowrisk women; however 60–70% of women develop a medical indication resulting in a prenatal ultrasound [2]. Several bodies (the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine [AIUM], the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology [ACOG], and the American College of Radiology [ACR]) agree on the indications for ultrasound in pregnancy and the minimum requirement of images, regardless of who performs the studies: radiologists or obstetricians.

Prenatal ultrasound may improve specific pregnancy outcomes indirectly. For example, ultrasound may: (1) identify congenital anomalies to allow for the option of termination or appropriate delivery or management at specialized centers; (2) accurately date the gestation in case of preterm delivery; (3) best recognize multiple gestations, as well as significant growth disturbances.

Type: Chapter
Information: Imaging of the Newborn , pp. 220 - 234

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978074.017 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. B. G., Ewigman, J. P., Crane, F. D., Frigoletto, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(12):821–7.Google Scholar

2. R. A., Filly, J. P., Crane. Routine obstetric sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21(7):713–18.Google Scholar

3. K. H., Nicolaides, G., Azar, D., Byrne, C., Mansur, K., Marks. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. BMJ 1992; 304(6831):867–9.Google Scholar

4. R. J., Snijders, S., Johnson, N. J., Sebire, P. L., Noble, K. H., Nicolaides. First-trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7(3):216–26.Google Scholar

5. ,The Fetal Medicine Foundation (2010) Nuchal Translucency. Available at: www.fetalmedicineusa.com/documents/NuchalTranslucency.pdf (accessed March 27, 2011).

6. K. H., Nicolaides. First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29(4):190–4.Google Scholar

7. N. J., Wald, C., Rodeck, A. K., Hackshaw, et al. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess 2003; 7(11):1–77.Google Scholar

8. F. D., Malone, J. A., Canick, R. H., Ball, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(19):2001–11.Google Scholar

9. S., Cicero, P., Curcio, A., Papageorghiou, J., Sonek, K., Nicolaides. Absence of nasal bone in fetuses with trisomy 21 at 11–14 weeks of gestation: an observational study. Lancet 2001; 358(9294):1665–7.Google Scholar

10. W., Sepulveda, N. J., Sebire, K., Hughes, A., Odibo, K. H., Nicolaides. The lambda sign at 10–14 weeks of gestation as a predictor of chorionicity in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7(6):421–3.Google Scholar

11. ,American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (2007) AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations. Available at: www.aium.org/publications/guidelines/obstetric. pdf (accessed March 21, 2010).

12. H., Grandjean, D., Larroque, S., Levi. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181(2):446–54.Google Scholar

13. R., Smith-Bindman, W., Hosmer, V. A., Feldstein, J. J., Deeks, J. D., Goldberg. Second-trimester ultrasound to detect fetuses with Down syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001; 285(8):1044–55.Google Scholar

14. C. A., Lennon, D. L., Gray. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the detection of neural tube and ventral wall defects in a high-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94(4):562–6.Google Scholar

15. B., Weisz, A. L., David, L., Chitty, et al. Association of isolated short femur in the mid-trimester fetus with perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31(5):512–16.Google Scholar

16. ,American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (2007) AIUM Official Statement: Prudent use in Obstetrics. Available at: www.aium.org/publications/viewStatement.aspx?id=2 (accessed July 16, 2010).

17. F. A., Chervenak, D. W., Skupski, R., Romero, et al. How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age?Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178(4):678–87.Google Scholar

18. F. P., Hadlock, R. L., Deter, R. B., Harrist, S. K., Park. Computer assisted analysis of fetal age in the third trimester using multiple fetal growth parameters. J Clin Ultrasound 1983; 11(6):313–16.Google Scholar

19. F. P., Hadlock, R. B., Harrist, J., Martinez-Poyer. How accurate is second trimester fetal dating?J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10(10):557–61.Google Scholar

20. J. E., Drumm, J., Clinch, G., MacKenzie. The ultrasonic measurement of fetal crown-rump length as a method of assessing gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976; 83(6):417–21.Google Scholar

21. ,American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113(2 Pt. 1):451–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

22. I., Burd, S., Srinivas, E., Paré, V., Dharan, E., Wang. Is sonographic assessment of fetal weight influenced by formula selection?J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28(8):1019–24.Google Scholar

23. Z., Alfirevic, T., Stampalija, G. M. L., Gyte. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: CD007529. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007529. pub2.Google Scholar

24. G., Mari, J., Picconi. Doppler vascular changes in intrauterine growth restriction. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32(3):182–9.Google Scholar

25. ,GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus: short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG 2003; 110(1):27–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

26. ,British Association of Perinatal Medicine (2010) Clinical Trials Database: TRUFFLE study ((Trial of umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE): a multicentre randomised study)). www.bapm.org/trials/view-trial.php?RecordID=34 (accessed March 21, 2010).

27. W., Lee, R. L., Deter, J. D., Ebersole, et al. Birth weight prediction by three-dimensional ultrasonography: fractional limb volume. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20(12):1283–92.Google Scholar