SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 10

Prevalence of echogenic intracardiac focus and its association with fetal aneuploidy and adverse perinatal outcomes in Turkish pregnancies

Ceyda SANCAKLI USTA
Çağla Bahar BÜLBÜL
Pages
2540–2545
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The pregnancy outcomes of patients with isolated and non-isolated EIF and control group were compared.Results: Overall, 2590 obstetric sonograms were examined, with an EIF prevalence of 2.55%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The association between echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF) and fetal aneuploidy is well established, with a recognized ethnic variation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of EIF in Turkish pregnancies and examine its association with fetal aneuploidy and adverse pregnancy outcomes.Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of second-trimester obstetric ultrasonography (16–24 weeks) at a university hospital for over 4 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The pregnancy outcomes of patients with isolated and non-isolated EIF and control group were compared.Results: Overall, 2590 obstetric sonograms were examined, with an EIF prevalence of 2.55%.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The association between echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF) and fetal aneuploidy is well established, with a recognized ethnic variation. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of EIF in Turkish pregnancies and examine its association with fetal aneuploidy and adverse pregnancy outcomes.Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of second-trimester obstetric ultrasonography (16–24 weeks) at a university hospital for over 4 years. During the evaluation, all pregnancies with and without EIF were divided into three groups; Group 1: control group (randomly selected patients without EIF, n = 100); Group 2: isolated EIF group, (EIF is the sole finding, n = 45) and Group 3: non-isolated EIF group, (EIF with accompanying other ultrasound findings for fetal aneuploidy and/or presence of congenital anomalies, n = 21). The pregnancy outcomes of patients with isolated and non-isolated EIF and control group were compared.Results: Overall, 2590 obstetric sonograms were examined, with an EIF prevalence of 2.55%. The presence of other ultrasonography findings and/or congenital anomalies accompanying EIF was associated with an increased risk of fetal aneuploidy, and 2 of 21 (9.5%) pregnancies in the non-isolated EIF group had fetal aneuploidy. In addition, non-isolated EIF was associated with perinatal mortality, preterm delivery, and polyhydramnios when compared to controls and isolated EIF pregnancies. There was no difference in the pregnancy outcomes between control and patients with isolated EIF.Conclusion: EIF is a rare occurrence in Turkish pregnancies and as a sole finding, it is not associated with fetal aneuploidy or other adverse pregnancy outcomes. However, the presence of ultrasonography findings and/or congenital anomalies accompanying EIF was associated with an increased rate of fetal aneuploidy and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

🔖

Cite This Article

USTA, C. S., BÜLBÜL, Ç. B. (2022). Prevalence of echogenic intracardiac focus and its association with fetal aneuploidy and adverse perinatal outcomes in Turkish pregnancies. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 10, 2540–2545. https://ajindex.com/articles/446297

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Carrico A, Matias A, Areias JC. How important is a cardiac echogenic focus in a routine fetal examination? Rev Port Cardiol Orgao Of Soc Port Cardiol Port J Cardiol Off J Port Soc Cardiol 2004;23:459-61
  2. Wax JR, Mather J, Steinfeld JD, et al. Fetal intracardiac echogenic foci: current understanding and clinical significance. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000;55:303-11
  3. Schechter AG, Fakhry J, Shapiro LR, et al. In utero thickening of the chordae tendinae. A cause of intracardiac echogenic foci. J Ultrasound Med Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med 1987;6:691-5
  4. Waldo K, Zdanowicz M, Burch J, et al. A novel role for cardiac neural crest in heart development. J Clin Invest 1999;103:1499-507
  5. Vibhakar NI, Budorick NE, Scioscia AL, et al. Prevalence of aneuploidy with a cardiac intraventricular echogenic focus in an at-risk patient population. J Ultrasound Med Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med 1999;18:265-8; quiz 269-70
  6. Benacerraf BR. Use of sonographic markers to determine the risk of Down syndrome in secondtrimester fetuses. Radiology 1996;201:619-20
  7. Spencer K, Souter V, Tul N, et al. A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10–14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:231-7
  8. Benacerraf BR, Mandell J, Estroff JA, et al. Fetal pyelectasis: a possible association with Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:58-60
  9. Corteville JE, Dicke JM, Crane JP. Fetal pyelectasis and Down syndrome: is genetic amniocentesis warranted? Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:770-2
  10. Nyberg DA, Dubinsky T, Resta RG, et al. Echogenic fetal bowel during the second trimester: clinical importance. Radiology 1993;188:527-31
  11. Chiu G, Zhao A, Zhang B, Zhang T. Intracardiac echogenic focus and its location: association with congenital heart defects. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet 2019;32:3074-8
  12. Gonçalves TRM, Zamith MM, Murta CGV, et al. Chromosomal and cardiac anomalies in fetuses with intracardiac echogenic foci. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet 2006;95:132-7
  13. Mirza FG, Ghulmiyyah L, Tamim H, et al. Echogenic intracardiac focus on second trimester ultrasound: prevalence and significance in a Middle Eastern population. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet 2016;29:2293-6
  14. Kandasamy S, Raj S