Nonimmune fetal ascites: identification of ultrasound findings predictive of perinatal death

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
6
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
Citação
JOURNAL OF PERINATAL MEDICINE, v.44, n.2, p.195-200, 2016
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Aim: To determine the ultrasonographic findings that predict death in fetal ascites. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study involving pregnancies with ultrasonographic findings related to fetal ascites. The inclusion criteria were as follows: single pregnancy with a live fetus; ultrasound findings of ascites; ascites unrelated to maternal fetal alloimmunization; and pregnancy follow-up at our institution. The chi(2)-test was used to evaluate the association of ultrasound findings and death. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the ultrasound findings that are predictive of death prior to hospital discharge. Results: A total of 154 pregnancies were included in the study. In 8 (5.19%) cases, ascites was an isolated finding, and in 146 cases, other alterations were observed during the ultrasound evaluation. Death before hospital discharge occurred in 117 cases (76.00%). The following ultrasonographic findings were significantly associated with death: gestational age at diagnosis <24 weeks (P < 0.0001); stable/progressive ascites evolution (P = 0.004); the presence of hydrops (P < 0.0001); and the presence of cystic hygroma (P < 0.0001). The presence of hydrops, the presence of respiratory tract malformations, and stable/progressive ascites evolution were significantly associated with the prediction of death. Conclusions: Based on ultrasound examination, the presence of hydrops, malformation of the respiratory tract, and stable/progressive evolution of ascites increase the chances of death in cases of fetal ascites.
Palavras-chave
Fetal ascites, fetal prognosis, hydrops, prenatal, ultrasonography
Referências
  1. PHELAN JP, 1987, J REPROD MED, V32, P540
  2. Lee S, 2013, J CLIN ULTRASOUND, V41, P28, DOI 10.1002/jcu.22005
  3. Carbillon L, 2001, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V18, P272, DOI 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00515.x
  4. Spaggiari E, 2013, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V41, P185, DOI 10.1002/uog.12328
  5. Nose S, 2011, PEDIATR SURG INT, V27, P799, DOI 10.1007/s00383-011-2855-y
  6. El Bishry G, 2008, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V137, P43, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.05.007
  7. Kim SA, 2015, J PERINAT MED, V43, P53, DOI 10.1515/jpm-2013-0208
  8. Favre R, 2004, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V190, P407, DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.016
  9. Boutall A, 2011, INT J GYNECOL OBSTET, V115, P148, DOI 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.04.011
  10. Agrawala G, 2005, J MATERN-FETAL NEO M, V17, P291, DOI 10.1080/14767050500133516
  11. Schmider A, 2003, FETAL DIAGN THER, V18, P230, DOI 10.1159/000070801
  12. Pradhan M, 2012, FETAL DIAGN THER, V32, P292, DOI 10.1159/000337612
  13. Mace G, 2014, PRENATAL DIAG, V34, P1023, DOI 10.1002/pd.4413
  14. Mari G, 2000, NEW ENGL J MED, V342, P9, DOI 10.1056/NEJM200001063420102
  15. ZELOP C, 1994, PRENATAL DIAG, V14, P941, DOI 10.1002/pd.1970141008