S Christopher Derderian1, Cerine Jeanty1, Shannon R Fleck2, Lily S Cheng1, Shabnam Peyvandi3, Anita J Moon-Grady3, Jody Farrell4, Shinjiro Hirose1, Juan Gonzalez5, Roberta L Keller3, Tippi C MacKenzie6. 1. Fetal Treatment Center, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States; Department of Surgery, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 2. Department of Pediatrics, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 3. Fetal Treatment Center, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States; Department of Pediatrics, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 4. Fetal Treatment Center, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 5. Fetal Treatment Center, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 6. Fetal Treatment Center, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States; Department of Surgery, The University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. Electronic address: Tippi.Mackenzie@ucsfmedctr.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fetal hydrops arises from multiple disease processes and can portend a grim prognosis. We reviewed our experience with hydropic fetuses to understand relevant antenatal anatomic and physiologic predictors of survival. METHODS: We reviewed fetal ultrasounds and echocardiograms of hydropic fetuses evaluated from 1996 to 2013. RESULTS: Overall neonatal survival in 167 fetuses was 44% (range, 0-75%) and was influenced by the underlying disease process. The anatomic distribution of fluid varied and was not significantly different between survivors and nonsurvivors. Univariate analysis indicated that resolution of hydrops and delivery at a later gestational age were predictive of survival (OR: 5.7 (95% CI: 2.5-13.2) and OR: 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.4), respectively). Fetal intervention also improved survival in some diseases. Echocardiograms were reviewed to group fetuses with similar cardiac physiology and defined categories with high or low/normal cardiothoracic ratio (CTR). Among patients with a high CTR, the cardiovascular profile score was predictive of survival (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Survival in hydrops depends on the underlying disease, available fetal therapies to resolve hydrops, and the gestational age of delivery and not on the specific anatomic manifestations of hydrops. In hydropic fetuses with high CTRs, the cardiovascular profile score may be a useful prognostic indicator.
PURPOSE: Fetal hydrops arises from multiple disease processes and can portend a grim prognosis. We reviewed our experience with hydropic fetuses to understand relevant antenatal anatomic and physiologic predictors of survival. METHODS: We reviewed fetal ultrasounds and echocardiograms of hydropic fetuses evaluated from 1996 to 2013. RESULTS: Overall neonatal survival in 167 fetuses was 44% (range, 0-75%) and was influenced by the underlying disease process. The anatomic distribution of fluid varied and was not significantly different between survivors and nonsurvivors. Univariate analysis indicated that resolution of hydrops and delivery at a later gestational age were predictive of survival (OR: 5.7 (95% CI: 2.5-13.2) and OR: 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.4), respectively). Fetal intervention also improved survival in some diseases. Echocardiograms were reviewed to group fetuses with similar cardiac physiology and defined categories with high or low/normal cardiothoracic ratio (CTR). Among patients with a high CTR, the cardiovascular profile score was predictive of survival (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Survival in hydrops depends on the underlying disease, available fetal therapies to resolve hydrops, and the gestational age of delivery and not on the specific anatomic manifestations of hydrops. In hydropic fetuses with high CTRs, the cardiovascular profile score may be a useful prognostic indicator.
Authors: W T Mahle; J Rychik; Z Y Tian; M S Cohen; L J Howell; T M Crombleholme; A W Flake; N S Adzick Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Darrell L Cass; Oluyinka O Olutoye; Nancy A Ayres; Kenneth J Moise; Carolyn A Altman; Anthony Johnson; Christopher I Cassady; David A Lazar; Timothy C Lee; M Regina L Lantin Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: S Christopher Derderian; Shivika Trivedi; Jody Farrell; Roberta L Keller; Larry Rand; Ruth Goldstein; Vickie A Feldstein; Shinjiro Hirose; Tippi C MacKenzie Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Lee M Morris; Foong-Yen Lim; Jeffrey C Livingston; William J Polzin; Timothy M Crombleholme Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Victoria K Berger; Teresa N Sparks; Angie C Jelin; Chris Derderian; Cerine Jeanty; Kristen Gosnell; Tippi Mackenzie; Juan M Gonzalez Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Teresa N Sparks; Kao Thao; Billie R Lianoglou; Nina M Boe; Kari G Bruce; Ilina Datkhaeva; Nancy T Field; Victoria M Fratto; Jennifer Jolley; Louise C Laurent; Anne H Mardy; Aisling M Murphy; Emily Ngan; Naseem Rangwala; Catherine A M Rottkamp; Lisa Wilson; Erica Wu; Cherry C Uy; Priscila Valdez Lopez; Mary E Norton Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Tippi C MacKenzie; Ali Amid; Michael Angastiniotis; Craig Butler; Sandra Gilbert; Juan Gonzalez; Roberta L Keller; Sandhya Kharbanda; Melanie Kirby-Allen; Barbara A Koenig; Wade Kyono; Ashutosh Lal; Billie R Lianoglou; Mary E Norton; Keith K Ogasawara; Tachjaree Panchalee; Mara Rosner; Marisa Schwab; Alexis Thompson; John S Waye; Elliott Vichinsky Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-12-28