Cardiac biometry and function in euploid fetuses with intracardiac echogenic foci

Childhood Outcomes in Children with and without Cardiac Echogenic Foci: An Electronic Birth Cohort Study in Wales, UK

There is uncertainty about outcomes associated with cardiac echogenic foci (CEF) seen at the midtrimester ultrasound scan because of limited population-based follow-up data. This can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and significant parental anxiety. We analysed data from a cohort study, The Welsh Study of Mothers and Babies, to examine whether children with CEF had more adverse outcomes during childhood compared with children without CEF. Children born between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011 were followed until 31 January 2018, migration out of Wales, or death. The primary outcome was cardiac hospital admissions, defined a priori by an expert steering group. Secondary outcomes included congenital cardiac anomalies, and hospital admissions for other causes. There was no evidence of an association between isolated CEF and cardiac hospital admissions (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-2.25, p value 0.768), or with congenital cardiac anomalies. There was a small increased risk of a respiratory admission with isolated CEF (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.54, p value 0.020). Further research is needed on features of CEF, such as location or number, to fully understand the clinical significance of these findings.

Clinical significance of soft markers in second trimesterr ultrasonography for pregnant Korean women: a multicenter study and literature review

Objective

To evaluate the clinical significance of soft markers for aneuploidy screening in Korean women.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 5,428 singleton pregnant women who underwent sonography during the second trimester at seven institutions in South Korea. We evaluated the prevalence of the following soft markers: intracardiac echogenic focus, choroid plexus cysts, pyelectasis, echogenic bowel, and mild ventriculomegaly. We developed best-fitted regression equations for the fetal femur and humerus length using our data and defined a short femur and humerus as both long bones below the fifth centile. The results of genetic testing and postnatal outcomes were investigated in patients who had been diagnosed with aforementioned soft markers.

Results

The median maternal age of our study population was 33 years, and the median gestational age at the time of ultrasonographic examination was 21 weeks. We detected soft markers in 10.0% (n=540) of fetuses: 9.3% (n=504) were isolated cases and 0.7% (n=36) of cases had two or more markers. We identified only two aneuploides (trisomy 18, 46,XX,t[8;10][q22.1;p13]), of which one was clinically significant. We presented the neonatal outcomes of the fetuses with the respective soft markers. Preterm delivery, low birth weight, and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) were significantly more common in women with a shortened fetal femur (P<0.001, all). However, the presence of a shortened fetal humerus was not associated with those outcomes excluding SGA.

Conclusion

Soft markers in second-trimester ultrasonography have limited use in screening for fetal aneuploidy in Korean women. However, these markers can be used as a screening tool for adverse outcomes other than chromosomal abnormality.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #57: Evaluation and management of isolated soft ultrasound markers for aneuploidy in the second trimester: (Replaces Consults #10, Single umbilical artery, October 2010; #16, Isolated echogenic bowel diagnosed on second-trimester ultrasound, August 2011; #17, Evaluation and management of isolated renal pelviectasis on second-trimester ultrasound, December 2011; #25, Isolated fetal choroid plexus cysts, April 2013; #27, Isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, August 2013)

Soft markers were originally introduced to prenatal ultrasonography to improve the detection of trisomy 21 over that achievable with age-based and serum screening strategies. As prenatal genetic screening strategies have greatly evolved in the last 2 decades, the relative importance of soft markers has shifted. The purpose of this document is to discuss the recommended evaluation and management of isolated soft markers in the context of current maternal serum screening and cell-free DNA screening options. In this document, "isolated" is used to describe a soft marker that has been identified in the absence of any fetal structural anomaly, growth restriction, or additional soft marker following a detailed obstetrical ultrasound examination. In this document, "serum screening methods" refers to all maternal screening strategies, including first-trimester screen, integrated screen, sequential screen, contingent screen, or quad screen. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends the following approach to the evaluation and management of isolated soft markers: (1) we do not recommend diagnostic testing for aneuploidy solely for the evaluation of an isolated soft marker following a negative serum or cell-free DNA screening result (GRADE 1B); (2) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1B); (3) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated thickened nuchal fold or isolated absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (4) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 18 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1C); (5) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and an isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, we recommend no further evaluation as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for fetal echocardiography, follow-up ultrasound imaging, or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1B); (6) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated fetal echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (7) for pregnant people with negative serum screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and discussion of options for no further aneuploidy evaluation, noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA, or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (8) for pregnant people with negative cell-free DNA screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (9) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation, as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for follow-up ultrasound imaging or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1C); (10) for fetuses with isolated echogenic bowel, we recommend an evaluation for cystic fibrosis and fetal cytomegalovirus infection and a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C); (11) for fetuses with an isolated single umbilical artery, we recommend no additional evaluation for aneuploidy, regardless of whether results of previous aneuploidy screening were low risk or testing was declined. We recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination to evaluate growth and consideration of weekly antenatal fetal surveillance beginning at 36 0/7 weeks of gestation (GRADE 1C); (12) for fetuses with isolated urinary tract dilation A1, we recommend an ultrasound examination at ≥32 weeks of gestation to determine if postnatal pediatric urology or nephrology follow-up is needed. For fetuses with urinary tract dilation A2-3, we recommend an individualized follow-up ultrasound assessment with planned postnatal follow-up (GRADE 1C); (13) for fetuses with isolated shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C).

Isolated intracardiac echogenic focus on routine ultrasound: implications for practice

Ultrasound is widely used as a screening tool for fetal anomalies. An intracardiac echogenic focus (ICEF) is associated with fetal aneuploidy, particularly trisomy 21, when found with other minor abnormalities known as soft markers. However, when found in isolation, intracardiac echogenic foci are morphologic variations with little or no pathologic significance for the fetus. Ambiguity about the significance of ICEF and other soft markers and the lack of preparation prior to ultrasound can result in unnecessary worry for women and their partners. A variety of tools exist that providers can use to help pregnant women and their partners make informed decisions about ultrasound and fetal screening.

Evaluation of tissue Doppler-derived myocardial performance index in fetuses with intracardiac echogenic focus

OBJECTIVE

To compare cardiac function between fetuses with and without intracardiac echogenic foci (IEFs) by conventional echocardiography and tissue Doppler (TD) imaging.

METHODS

Fetuses having IEF and no additional cardiac or extracardiac anomaly between 20 and 28 weeks (median 22 weeks) of gestation (n = 61) were compared with healthy fetuses between 18 and 29 weeks (median 23 weeks) of gestation (n = 55). Pulmonary artery and aortic peak velocities, atrioventricular (AV) early diastole (E) and atrial contraction (A) velocities and E/A ratios were measured. TD-derived myocardial performance index (MPI) was also measured.

RESULTS

Tricuspid valve E/A ratios, which were 0.634 ± 0.07 versus 0.639 ± 0.06 (p = 0.697), mitral valve E/A ratios, which were 0.604 ± 0.08 versus 0.612 ± 0.07 (p = 0.600), aorta peak velocities, which were 0.709 ± 0.11 versus 0.697 ± 0.11 (p = 0.592) and pulmonary artery peak velocities, which were 0.699 ± 0.12 versus 0.694 ± 0.11 (p = 0.800) in the study and the control groups, respectively. TD-derived measurements in the study and control groups included tricuspid valve MPI, which were 0.452 ± 0.08 versus 0.473 ± 0.09 (p = 0.221) and mitral valve MPI values, which were 0.444 ± 0.1 versus 0.445 ± 0.09 (p = 0.965), respectively, and this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

An isolated IEF is not associated with abnormal cardiac function. We suggest that the presence of an isolated IEF should not be an indication for fetal cardiac function examination either with conventional Doppler or TD imaging techniques, unless there is a coexisting cardiac or extracardiac anomaly.