Relationship between fetal ultrasonic soft markers and adverse pregnancy outcomes during the first trimester
10.3760/cma.j.cn131148-20211223-00949
- VernacularTitle:早孕期胎儿超声软指标与不良妊娠结局的关系
- Author:
Chunya JI
1
;
Xiaoli JIANG
;
Linliang YIN
;
Xuedong DENG
;
Jiangnan WU
;
Qi PAN
;
Zhong YANG
;
Jun ZHANG
;
Lingling SUN
;
Chen LING
;
Chenhan ZHENG
;
Guiping LI
;
Yumei WANG
Author Information
1. 南京医科大学附属苏州医院 苏州市立医院超声中心，苏州 215002
- Keywords:
Ultrasonography;
First trimester;
Fetus;
Ultrasonic soft markers;
Adverse pregnancy outcomes
- From:
Chinese Journal of Ultrasonography
2022;31(8):717-723
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the relationship between soft markers found in the first trimester (11-13 + 6 gestational weeks) ultrasound screening and fetal adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods:Single pregnancy fetuses were selected from the Multicenter Clinical Study of First Trimester Screening in China during August 2017 to August 2020. The types and detection rate of soft markers during the first trimester were compared. The correlation between positive soft markers and adverse pregnancy outcomes was analyzed by binary Logistics regression.Results:A total of 16 625 fetuses with complete follow-up outcomes were included in the group. Six hundred and seven ultrasonic soft markers were detected in 556 fetuses with positive soft markers during the first trimester, and the first four most frequently occurred were increased nuchal translucency (NT) (2.08%, 345/16 625), echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF) (0.94%, 156/16 625), hypoplasia of fetal nasal bone (0.20%, 34/16 625), single umbilical artery (SUA) (0.19%, 31/16 625). Among 556 fetuses, the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcome in fetuses with two or more positive soft markers was 32.50% (13/40), which was significantly higher than fetuses with single positive soft marker (11.05%, 57/516), and the difference was statistically significant (χ 2=5.055, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcome in positive soft markers fetus associated with structural abnormalities was 80.77% (21/26), which was significantly higher than fetuses with isolated positive soft marker (12.08%, 64/530), and the difference was statistically significant (χ 2=90.310, P<0.001). Binary logistic regression analysis showed choroid plexus cyst (CPC), SUA, echogenic bowel (EB), absent/reversed a-wave of ductus venosus, hypoplasia of fetal nasal bone, increased NT, and EIF were closely related to the adverse pregnancy outcomes (all P<0.05). However, there were no significant correlations between tricuspid regurgitation (TR), pyelectasis (PYE) and fetal adverse pregnancy outcomes (all P>0.05). Conclusions:The ultrasonic soft markers during the first trimester are of great significance in predicting fetal adverse pregnancy outcomes. For multiple positive soft markers or positive soft markers combined with structural abnormalities, more attention should be paid to them and comprehensive evaluation is required to be carried out.
