OBJECTIVES: To compare fetal organ size measured using echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging and 2D ultrasound. To determine the relative accuracy with which each technique can predict fetal growth restriction. DESIGN: A cross sectional, observational study comparing two different measurement techniques against a gold standard, in a normal clinical population and an abnormal population. SETTING AND POPULATION: Seventy-four pregnant women (33 who were ultimately found to be normal and 37 with fetal growth restricted fetuses) were recruited from the City Hospital Nottingham UK to be scanned once (at various gestations). METHODS: Each fetus had a standard ultrasound biometry assessment followed by magnetic resonance imaging measurement of organ volumes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each measurement for both techniques, the normal population was plotted with 90% confidence intervals. Fetal growth restricted subjects were compared with the normal population using this plot; 2 x 2 tables were created for each measurement. This was used to calculate the relative sensitivities and positive predictive value of the different measurements. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare the ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging measurements of fetal weight. RESULTS: Brain sparing was seen in ultrasonic head circumference measurements, but an overall reduction in fetal growth restriction brain volume was apparent using magnetic resonance imaging at late gestations. Across the whole range of gestational ages, ultrasound assessment of fetal weight was the best predictor of fetal growth restriction. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound fetal weight assessment appears to identify more fetuses with fetal growth restriction than abdominal circumference. The brain sparing apparent in ultrasonic head circumference measurements of fetuses with fetal growth restriction masks a reduction in brain volume observed with magnetic resonance imaging.
OBJECTIVES: To compare fetal organ size measured using echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging and 2D ultrasound. To determine the relative accuracy with which each technique can predict fetal growth restriction. DESIGN: A cross sectional, observational study comparing two different measurement techniques against a gold standard, in a normal clinical population and an abnormal population. SETTING AND POPULATION: Seventy-four pregnant women (33 who were ultimately found to be normal and 37 with fetal growth restricted fetuses) were recruited from the City Hospital Nottingham UK to be scanned once (at various gestations). METHODS: Each fetus had a standard ultrasound biometry assessment followed by magnetic resonance imaging measurement of organ volumes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each measurement for both techniques, the normal population was plotted with 90% confidence intervals. Fetal growth restricted subjects were compared with the normal population using this plot; 2 x 2 tables were created for each measurement. This was used to calculate the relative sensitivities and positive predictive value of the different measurements. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare the ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging measurements of fetal weight. RESULTS: Brain sparing was seen in ultrasonic head circumference measurements, but an overall reduction in fetal growth restriction brain volume was apparent using magnetic resonance imaging at late gestations. Across the whole range of gestational ages, ultrasound assessment of fetal weight was the best predictor of fetal growth restriction. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound fetal weight assessment appears to identify more fetuses with fetal growth restriction than abdominal circumference. The brain sparing apparent in ultrasonic head circumference measurements of fetuses with fetal growth restriction masks a reduction in brain volume observed with magnetic resonance imaging.
Authors: Harald Schubert; Michael Eiselt; Bernd Walter; Harald Fritz; Michael Brodhun; Reinhard Bauer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 17.440