Prenatal ultrasound and childhood autism: long-term follow-up after a randomized controlled trial of first- vs second-trimester ultrasound

Prenatal ultrasound use and risk of autism spectrum disorder: Findings from the case-control Study to Explore Early Development

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating the association between prenatal ultrasounds and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have largely produced negative results. Concern remains due to the rising identification of children with ASD and ultrasound use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between prenatal ultrasound use and ASD.

METHODS

We used data from the Study to Explore Early Development, a multisite case-control study of preschool-aged children with ASD implemented during 2007-2012. We recruited cases from children receiving developmental disability services and randomly selected population controls from birth records. ASD case status was based on in-person standardised assessments. We stratified analyses by pre-existing maternal medical conditions and pregnancy complications associated with increased ultrasound use (ultrasound indications) and used logistic regression to model case status by increasing ultrasound counts. For pregnancies with medical record data on ultrasound timing, we conducted supplementary tests to model associations by trimester of exposure.

RESULTS

Among 1524 singleton pregnancies, ultrasound indications were more common for ASD cases than controls; respectively, for each group, no indications were reported for 45.1% and 54.2% of pregnancies, while ≥2 indications were reported for 26.1% and 18.4% of pregnancies. The percentage of pregnancies with multiple ultrasounds varied by case status and the presence of ultrasound indications. However, stratified regression models showed no association between increasing ultrasound counts and case status, either for pregnancies without (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92, 1.11) or with ultrasound indications (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95, 1.08). Trimester-specific analyses using medical record data showed no association in any individual trimester.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that prenatal ultrasound use increases ASD risk. Study strengths included gold-standard assessments for ASD case classification, comparison of cases with controls, and a stratified sample to account for conditions associated both with increased prenatal ultrasound use and ASD.

How safe is it to use ultrasound in prenatal medicine? Facts and contradictions - Part 2 - Laboratory experiments regarding non-thermal effects and epidemiological studies

The first part of this CME article (issue 5/20) provided a detailed examination of the biophysical effects of ultrasound waves, the exposure values, and in particular the thermal effect. In vivo and in vitro measurements have shown that the temperature increase in tissue associated with B-mode ultrasound is far too low to pose a potential risk. Even experiments with exposure values in the range of pulsed Doppler have shown that temperature increases of over 1.5 °C can only occur in areas in direct contact with the probe, thus making a limited exposure time particularly in the case of transvaginal application advisable. The second part of this CME article describes various laboratory and animal experiments for evaluating non-thermal effects and also presents the most important epidemiological studies in the last 30 years in the form of an overview and review. In addition to direct insonation of isolated cells to examine possible mutagenic effects, the blood of patients exposed in vivo to ultrasound was also analyzed in multiple experiments. Reproducible chromosome aberrations could not be found in any of the studies. In contrast, many experiments on pregnant rodents showed some significant complications, such as abortion, deformities, and behavioral disorders. As in the case of thermal effects, the results of these experiments indicate the presence of an intensity- or pressure-dependent effect threshold. Numerous epidemiological studies examining possible short-term and long-term consequences after intrauterine ultrasound exposure are available with the most important studies being discussed in the following. In contrast to information presented incorrectly in the secondary literature and in the lay press, health problems could not be seen in the children observed in the postpartum period in any of these studies.

Routine ultrasound for fetal assessment before 24 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound examination of pregnancy before 24 weeks gestation may lead to more accurate dating and earlier diagnosis of pathology, but may also give false reassurance. It can be used to monitor development or diagnose conditions of an unborn baby. This review compares the effect of routine or universal, ultrasound examination, performed before 24 completed weeks' gestation, with selective or no ultrasound examination.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of routine pregnancy ultrasound before 24 weeks as part of a screening programme, compared to selective ultrasound or no ultrasound, on the early diagnosis of abnormal pregnancy location, termination for fetal congenital abnormality, multiple pregnancy, maternal outcomes and later fetal compromise. To assess the effect of first trimester (before 14 weeks) and second trimester (14 to 24 weeks) ultrasound, separately.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 11 August 2020. We also examined the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and RCTs published in abstract form. We included all trials with pregnant women who had routine or revealed ultrasound versus selective ultrasound, no ultrasound, or concealed ultrasound, before 24 weeks' gestation. All eligible studies were screened for scientific integrity and trustworthiness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, extracted data and checked extracted data for accuracy. Two review authors independently used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome MAIN RESULTS: Our review included data from 13 RCTs including 85,265 women. The review included four comparisons. Four trials were assessed to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment and two as high risk. The nature of the intervention made it impossible to blind women and staff providing care to treatment allocation.  Sample attrition was low in the majority of trials and outcome data were available for most women. Many trials were conducted before it was customary for trials to be registered and protocols published. First trimester routine versus selective ultrasound: four studies, 1791 women, from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). First trimester scans probably reduce short-term maternal anxiety about pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not have information on whether the reduction was sustained.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of first trimester scans on perinatal loss (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.73; 648 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence) or induction of labour for post-maturity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 1474 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). The effect of routine first trimester ultrasound on birth before 34 weeks or termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality was not reported. Second trimester routine versus selective ultrasound: seven studies, 36,053 women, from Finland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the US. Second trimester scans probably make little difference to perinatal loss (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.20; 17,918 participants, three studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or intrauterine fetal death (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.42; 29,584 participants, three studies; low-certainty evidence). Second trimester scans may reduce induction of labour for post-maturity (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; 24,174 participants, six studies; low-certainty evidence), presumably by more accurate dating. Routine second trimester ultrasound may improve detection of multiple pregnancy (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; 274 participants, five studies; low-certainty evidence). Routine second trimester ultrasound may increase detection of major fetal abnormality before 24 weeks (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.67 to 7.12; 387 participants, two studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the number of women terminating pregnancy for major anomaly (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.93; 26,893 participants, four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up of children exposed to scans before birth did not indicate harm to children's physical or intellectual development (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.34; 603 participants, one study; low-certainty evidence). The effect of routine second trimester ultrasound on birth before 34 weeks or maternal anxiety was not reported. Standard care plus two ultrasounds and referral for complications versus standard care: one cluster-RCT, 47,431 women, from Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia. This trial included a co-intervention, training of healthcare workers and referral for complications and was, therefore, assessed separately. Standard pregnancy care plus two scans, and training and referral for complications, versus standard care probably makes little difference to whether women with complications give birth in a risk appropriate setting with facilities for caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.19; 11,680 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  The intervention also probably makes little to no difference to low birthweight (< 2500 g) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 47,312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about whether the community intervention (including ultrasound) makes any difference to maternal mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.55; 46,768 participants; low-certainty evidence). Revealed ultrasound results (communicated to both patient and doctor) versus concealed ultrasound results (blinded to both patient and doctor at any time before 24 weeks): one study, 1095 women, from the UK. The evidence was very uncertain for all results relating to revealed versus concealed ultrasound scan (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early scans probably reduce short term maternal anxiety.  Later scans may reduce labour induction for post-maturity. They may improve detection of major fetal abnormalities and increase the number of women who choose termination of pregnancy for this reason. They may also reduce the number of undetected twin pregnancies. All these findings accord with observational data.  Neither type of scan appears to alter other important maternal or fetal outcomes, but our review may underestimate the effect in modern practice because trials were mostly  from relatively early in the development of the technology, and many control participants also had scans. The trials were also underpowered to show an effect on other important maternal or fetal outcomes.

Association of Prenatal Ultrasonography and Autism Spectrum Disorder

Importance

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been increasing rapidly, with current estimates of 1 in 68 children affected. Simultaneously, use of prenatal ultrasonography has increased substantially, with limited investigation into its safety and effects on brain development. Animal studies have demonstrated that prenatal ultrasonography can adversely affect neuronal migration.

Objective

To quantify prenatal ultrasound exposure by the frequency, timing, duration, and strength of ultrasonographic scans in children with later ASD, developmental delay, and typical development.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This case-control study included 107 patients with ASD, 104 control individuals with developmental delay, and 209 controls with typical development. Participants were identified from medical records based on prenatal care and delivery at Boston Medical Center, a diverse, academic, safety-net medical center, from July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2014, with a gestational age at birth of at least 37 weeks. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2015, through November 30, 2017.

Exposures

Ultrasonographic exposure was quantified by the number and timing of scans, duration of exposure, mean strength (depth, frame rate, mechanical index, and thermal index), and time of Doppler and 3- and 4-dimensional imaging.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Among participants with ASD and controls with developmental delay and typical development, ultrasound exposure was quantified and compared per trimester and for the entire pregnancy, with adjustment for infant sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal age.

Results

A total of 420 participants were included in the study (328 boys [78.1%] and 92 girls [21.9%]; mean age as of January 1, 2016, 6.6 years; 95% CI, 6.5-6.8 years). The ASD group received a mean of 5.9 scans (95% CI, 5.2-6.6), which was not significantly different from the 6.1 scans (95% CI, 5.4-6.8) in the developmental delay group or the 6.3 scans (95% CI, 5.8-6.8) in the typical development group. Compared with the typical development group, the ASD group had shorter duration of ultrasound exposure during the first (290.4 seconds [95% CI, 212.8-368.0 seconds] vs 406.4 seconds [95% CI, 349.5-463.3 seconds]) and second (1687.6 seconds [95% CI, 1493.8-1881.4 seconds] vs 2011.0 seconds [95% CI, 1868.9-2153.1 seconds]) trimesters but no difference in the number of scans. The ASD group had greater mean depth of ultrasonographic penetration than the developmental delay group in the first trimester (12.5 cm [95% CI, 12.0-13.0 cm] vs 11.6 cm [95% CI, 11.1-12.1 cm]). The ASD group had greater mean depth than the typical development group during the first (12.5 cm [95% CI, 12.0-13.0 cm] vs 11.6 cm [95% CI, 11.3-12.0 cm]) and the second (12.9 cm [95% CI, 12.6-13.3 cm] vs 12.5 cm [95% CI, 12.2-12.7 cm]) trimesters.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found significantly greater mean depth of ultrasonographic penetration in the ASD group compared with the developmental delay group in the first trimester and compared with the typical development group in the first and second trimesters. Further research is needed to determine whether other variables of ultrasound exposure also have adverse effects on the developing fetus.