The Utility of Repeat Midtrimester Anatomy Ultrasound for Anomaly DetectionFunding None.
15 April 2017
29 December 2017
08 February 2018 (online)
Introduction Although guidelines recommend repeat ultrasound in the setting of an incomplete fetal anatomic survey, the clinical utility of this practice has not been established. As such, we aimed to assess the yield of repeat ultrasound for anomaly detection following an incomplete survey.
Materials and Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of all singletons who underwent a midtrimester anatomic ultrasound at University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) from 2006 to 2014. Patients with an incomplete ultrasound underwent repeat examinations until completion. The population was divided into cohorts FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD, corresponding to the ultrasound at which the exam was deemed complete. Each detected anomaly was tallied. The number of ultrasounds needed to detect an anomaly was then assessed per group.
Results Of 15,768 ultrasounds performed on 13,740 patients, 11,828 exams were completed on first attempt; 1,796 patients required a second, while 116 patients required a third scan or more. We detected 324 anomalies; 93.8% in FIRST, 5.9% in SECOND, and 0.3% in THIRD. The number of scans needed to detect an anomaly was 39, 189, and 348 for FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD, respectively.
Conclusion Over 90% of anomalies are detected on the initial fetal anatomic survey. The incremental diagnostic yield then decreases, requiring appreciably more repeat scans to detect one anomaly.
Keywordsincomplete ultrasound - suboptimal ultrasound visualization - repeat anatomy ultrasound - anatomy scan - anomaly detection
This study was presented in part as an oral presentation at the Annual Convention of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), New York City, NY, USA, March 17–21, 2016.
- 1 Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR. ; Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (05) 387-397
- 2 Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V. , et al; ISUOG Clinical Standards Committee. Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37 (01) 116-126
- 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 175: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (06) 241-256
- 4 Thornburg LL, Miles K, Ho M, Pressman EK. Fetal anatomic evaluation in the overweight and obese gravida. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33 (06) 670-675
- 5 Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E. , et al. Suboptimal second-trimester ultrasonographic visualization of the fetal heart in obese women: should we repeat the examination?. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24 (09) 1205-1209
- 6 Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Maternal obesity limits the ultrasound evaluation of fetal anatomy. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28 (08) 1025-1030
- 7 Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Effect of maternal obesity on the ultrasound detection of anomalous fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (05) 1001-1007
- 8 Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 14 (07) CD007058
- 9 Waller SA, O'Connell K, Carter A. , et al. Incidence of fetal anomalies after incomplete anatomic surveys between 16 and 22 weeks. Ultrasound Q 2013; 29 (04) 307-312
- 10 Stothard KJ, Tennant PW, Bell R, Rankin J. Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2009; 301 (06) 636-650
- 11 Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E. , et al. The impact of maternal obesity on midtrimester sonographic visualization of fetal cardiac and craniospinal structures. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28 (12) 1607-1611
- 12 Levi S. Ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: polemics around routine ultrasound screening for second trimester fetal malformations. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22 (04) 285-295
- 13 American College of Radiology. ACR–ACOG–AIUM–SRU practice parameter for the performance of obstetrical ultrasound. (Amended 2014). Available at: http://www.acr.org/~/media/f7bc35bd 59264e7cbe648f6d1bb8b8e2.pdf . Accessed February 2015
- 14 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32 (06) 1083-1101
- 15 Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Coding Committee. (Revised December 27, 2012). White Paper on Ultrasound Code 76811. Available at: https://www.smfm.org/attachedfiles/UltrasoundCode76811Revised-Dec272012.pdf . Accessed February 2015