AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations
01 Jun 2013-Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine)-Vol. 32, Iss: 6, pp 1083-1101
About: This article is published in Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.The article was published on 2013-06-01. It has received 301 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Guideline.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The proposed grading classification system will require extensive evaluation to assess its utility in predicting clinical outcomes and will help to further refine the classification system to one that correlates with other clinical outcomes such as the need for surgical intervention or renal function.
332 citations
University of Connecticut Health Center1, University of Barcelona2, The Chinese University of Hong Kong3, Columbia University Medical Center4, University of Pennsylvania5, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre6, Albert Einstein College of Medicine7, North York General Hospital8, University of Calgary9, Tel Aviv University10, Stanford University11, University of South Florida12, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy13, University of Exeter14
TL;DR: President President-Elect Past President Secretary Treasurer Lucas Otano MD, PhD (Argentina) Ignatia B. Bianchi MD, ex officio (USA) Position Statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on Behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis.
Abstract: President President-Elect Past President Secretary Treasurer Lucas Otano MD, PhD (Argentina) Ignatia B. Van den Veyver MD (USA) Jan M.M. van Lith MD, PhD (Netherlands) Louise Wilkins-Haug MD (USA) Antoni Borrell MD, PhD (Spain) Directors Peter Benn PhD, DSc (USA) Lyn Chitty PhD (UK) Rossa Chiu (Hong Kong) Roland Devlieger MD, PhD (Belgium) Sylvie Langlois MD, CCMG (Canada) Anthony O. Odibo MD, MSCE (USA) R. Doug Wilson MD, Msc, FRCSC (Canada) Yuval Yaron MD (Israel) Diana W. Bianchi MD, ex officio (USA) Position Statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on Behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis
242 citations
University of Connecticut Health Center1, University of Barcelona2, The Chinese University of Hong Kong3, Columbia University Medical Center4, University of Pennsylvania5, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre6, Albert Einstein College of Medicine7, University of Calgary8, Tel Aviv University9, Stanford University10, Washington University in St. Louis11, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy12, North York General Hospital13, University of Plymouth14
TL;DR: This Statement replaces the January 2011 Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2011;31:519–522) and the Rapid Response Statement (RIVM 2012;32:1–2).
Abstract: Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Institute of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Maternitat Campus, University of Barcelona Medical School, Catalonia, Spain Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands Prenatal Screening Unit, Clinical Biochemistry Department, Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, King George Hospital, Goodmayes, UK Genetics Program, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Genetic Institute, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel *Correspondence to: Peter Benn. E-mail: benn@nso1.uchc.edu This Statement replaces the January 2011 Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2011;31:519–522) and the Rapid Response Statement (Prenatal Diagnosis 2012;32:1–2).
205 citations
TL;DR: Ectopic pregnancy is a considerable cause of maternal morbidity, causing acute symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding and long-term problems such as infertility, and remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related first trimester death.
Abstract: An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilised ovum implants outside the normal uterine cavity.1,–,3 It is a common cause of morbidity and occasionally of mortality in women of reproductive age. The aetiology of ectopic pregnancy remains uncertain although a number of risk factors have been identified.4 Its diagnosis can be difficult. In current practice, in developed countries, diagnosis relies on a combination of ultrasound scanning and serial serum beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG) measurements.5 Ectopic pregnancy is one of the few medical conditions that can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically.1 3 6
In the developed world, between 1% and 2% of all reported pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies (comparable to the incidence of spontaneous twin pregnancy).7 The incidence is thought to be higher in developing countries, but specific numbers are unknown. Although the incidence in the developed world has remained relatively static in recent years, between 1972 and 1992 there was an estimated six-fold rise in the incidence of ectopic pregnancy.8 This increase was attributed to three factors: an increase in risk factors such as pelvic inflammatory disease and smoking in women of reproductive age, the increased use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and increased awareness of the condition, facilitated by the development of specialised early pregnancy units (EPUs).
In the UK, ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related first trimester death (0.35/1000 ectopic pregnancies).3 6 9 However, in the developing world it has been estimated that 10% of women admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy ultimately die from the condition.10 Ectopic pregnancy is a considerable cause of maternal morbidity, causing acute symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding and long-term problems such as infertility.3 Short- and long-term consequences of ectopic pregnancy on …
185 citations
TL;DR: Rates of prenatal CHD detection in the United States remain low for patients undergoing surgical intervention, with significant variability between states and across defect type.
Abstract: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prenatal diagnosis allows improved perioperative outcomes for fetuses with certain forms of congenital heart disease (CHD). Variability in prenatal diagnosis has been demonstrated in other countries, leading to efforts to improve fetal imaging protocols and access to care, but has not been examined across the United States. The objective was to evaluate national variation in prenatal detection across geographic region and defect type in neonates and infants with CHD undergoing heart surgery. METHODS: Cardiovascular operations performed in patients ≤6 months of age in the United States and included in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (2006–2012) were eligible for inclusion. Centers with >15% missing prenatal diagnosis data were excluded from the study. Prenatal diagnosis rates were compared across geographic location of residence and defect type using the χ2 test. RESULTS: Overall, the study included 31 374 patients from 91 Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database participating centers across the United States. Prenatal detection occurred in 34% and increased every year, from 26% (2006) to 42% (2012). There was significant geographic variation in rates of prenatal diagnosis across states (range 11.8%–53.4%, P CONCLUSIONS: Rates of prenatal CHD detection in the United States remain low for patients undergoing surgical intervention, with significant variability between states and across defect type. Additional studies are needed to identify reasons for this variation and the potential impact on patient outcomes.
174 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: This report confirms that the best in utero weight estimates result from the use of models based on measurements of head size, abdominal size, and femur length, and recommends routine use of such models in obstetric sonography.
2,129 citations
TL;DR: Assessment of risk by a combination of maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness, measured by ultrasonography at 10-14 weeks of gestation, finds that selection of the high-risk group for invasive testing by this method allows the detection of about 80% of affected pregnancies.
1,532 citations
Columbia University1, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland2, Rotunda Hospital3, Brown University4, University of Utah5, Beaumont Hospital6, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai7, Yeshiva University8, University of Colorado Denver9, Tufts University10, New York University11, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill12, Queen Mary University of London13, University College London14
TL;DR: First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than secondtrimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-tr pregnancy quadruple screened, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening.
Abstract: background It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down’s syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters. methods Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement of alpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency). results First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down’s syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down’s syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening. conclusions First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than secondtrimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection of Down’s syndrome, with low false positive rates.
886 citations
TL;DR: The ISUOG Clinical Standards Committee (CSC) has a remit to develop Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements as educational recommendations that provide healthcare practitioners with a consensus-based approach for diagnostic imaging.
Abstract: The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) is a scientific organization that encourages sound clinical practice, teaching and research for diagnostic imaging in women’s healthcare. The ISUOG Clinical Standards Committee (CSC) has a remit to develop Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements as educational recommendations that provide healthcare practitioners with a consensus-based approach for diagnostic imaging. They are intended to reflect what is considered by ISUOG to be the best practices at the time at which they were issued. Although ISUOG has made every effort to ensure that guidelines are accurate when issued, neither the Society nor any of its employees or members accepts any liability for the consequences of any inaccurate or misleading data, opinions or statements issued by the CSC. They are not intended to establish a legal standard of care because interpretation of the evidence that underpins the guidelines may be influenced by individual circumstances and available resources. Approved guidelines can be distributed freely with the permission of ISUOG (info@isuog.org).
777 citations
TL;DR: Sonographic estimation of fetal weight in utero was performed in 167 live-born fetuses examined within one week of delivery, and the best results were obtained by combining measurements of the fetal head, abdomen, and femur.
Abstract: Sonographic estimation of fetal weight in utero was performed in 167 live-born fetuses examined within one week of delivery. Regression models were based on measurements of abdominal circumference, head circumference, biparietal diameter, and femur length, both alone and in combination. The best results (1 S.D. = 7.5% of actual weight) were obtained by combining measurements of the fetal head, abdomen, and femur, most likely due to the strong linear relationship between femur length and crown-heel length.
719 citations