| 1. |
- Freud, Lindsay R., et al.
(författare)
-
Prenatal vs postnatal diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: cardiac and noncardiac outcomes through 1 year of age
- 2024
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. - 0002-9378 .- 1097-6868. ; 230:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome is the most common microdeletion syndrome and is frequently associated with congenital heart disease. Prenatal diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome is increasingly offered. It is unknown whether there is a clinical benefit to prenatal detection as compared with postnatal diagnosis. Objective: This study aimed to determine differences in perinatal and infant outcomes between patients with prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study across multiple international centers (30 sites, 4 continents) from 2006 to 2019. Participants were fetuses, neonates, or infants with a genetic diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome by 1 year of age with or without congenital heart disease; those with prenatal diagnosis or suspicion (suggestive ultrasound findings and/or high-risk cell-free fetal DNA screen for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome with postnatal confirmation) were compared with those with postnatal diagnosis. Perinatal management, cardiac and noncardiac morbidity, and mortality by 1 year were assessed. Outcomes were adjusted for presence of critical congenital heart disease, gestational age at birth, and site. Results: A total of 625 fetuses, neonates, or infants with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (53.4% male) were included: 259 fetuses were prenatally diagnosed (156 [60.2%] were live-born) and 122 neonates were prenatally suspected with postnatal confirmation, whereas 244 infants were postnatally diagnosed. In the live-born cohort (n=522), 1-year mortality was 5.9%, which did not differ between groups but differed by the presence of critical congenital heart disease (hazard ratio, 4.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.56–11.18; P<.001) and gestational age at birth (hazard ratio, 0.78 per week; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.89; P<.001). Adjusting for critical congenital heart disease and gestational age at birth, the prenatal cohort was less likely to deliver at a local community hospital (5.1% vs 38.2%; odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.23; P<.001), experience neonatal cardiac decompensation (1.3% vs 5.0%; odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.49; P=.004), or have failure to thrive by 1 year (43.4% vs 50.3%; odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.36–0.91; P=.019). Conclusion: Prenatal detection of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome was associated with improved delivery management and less cardiac and noncardiac morbidity, but not mortality, compared with postnatal detection.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pereira, Susana, et al.
(författare)
-
Is the fetus fit for labor? Introducing fast-and-frugal trees (FFTrees) to simplify triage of women for STAN monitoring : An interobserver agreement comparison with traditional classification
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. - 0001-6349. ; 103:1, s. 68-76
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: It is a shortcoming of traditional cardiotocography (CTG) classification table formats that CTG traces are frequently classified differently by different users, resulting in poor interobserver agreements. A fast-and-frugal tree (FFTree) flow chart may help provide better concordance because it is straightforward and has clearly structured binary questions with understandable “yes” or “no” responses. The initial triage to determine whether a fetus is suitable for labor when utilizing fetal ECG ST analysis (STAN) is very important, since a fetus with restricted capacity to respond to hypoxic stress may not generate STAN events and therefore may become falsely negative. This study aimed to compare physiology-focused FFTree CTG interpretation with FIGO classification for assessing the suitability for STAN monitoring. Material and methods: A retrospective study of 36 CTG traces with a high proportion of adverse outcomes (17/36) selected from a European multicenter study database. Eight experienced European obstetricians evaluated the initial 40 minutes of the CTG recordings and judged whether STAN was a suitable fetal surveillance method and whether intervention was indicated. The experts rated the CTGs using the FFTree and FIGO classifications at least 6 weeks apart. Interobserver agreements were calculated using proportions of agreement and Fleiss’ kappa (κ). Results: The proportions of agreement for “not suitable for STAN” were for FIGO 47% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%–52%) and for FFTree 60% (95% CI 56–64), ie a significant difference; the corresponding figures for “yes, suitable” were 74% (95% CI 71–77) and 70% (95% CI 67–74). For “intervention needed” the figures were 52% (95% CI 47–56) vs 58% (95% CI 54–62) and for “expectant management” 74% (95% CI 71–77) vs 72% (95% CI 69–75). Fleiss’ κ agreement on “suitability for STAN” was 0.50 (95% CI 0.44–0.56) for the FIGO classification and 0.57 (95% CI 0.51–0.63) for the FFTree classification; the corresponding figures for “intervention or expectancy” were 0.53 (95% CI 0.47–0.59) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.51–0.63). Conclusions: The proportion of agreement among expert obstetricians using the FFTree physiological approach was significantly higher compared with the traditional FIGO classification system in rejecting cases not suitable for STAN monitoring. That might be of importance to avoid false negative STAN recordings. Other agreement figures were similar. It remains to be shown whether the FFTree simplicity will benefit less experienced users and how it will work in real-world clinical scenarios.
|
|
