Literature DB >> 26537560

Prenatal and postnatal markers of severity in congenital diaphragmatic hernia have similar prognostic ability.

N L Werner1, M Coughlin1, S M Kunisaki1, R Hirschl1, M Ladino-Torres2, D Berman3, J Kreutzman1, G B Mychaliska1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare prenatal versus postnatal markers of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) severity at a single fetal-care center.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients having a complete prenatal evaluation and surgical repair (n = 55). Observed-to-expected lung-to-head ratio (o/eLHR), observed-to-expected total lung volume (o/eTLV), liver position (LP), a predictive dependent variable from logistic regression of o/eLHR and liver position (o/eLHR + LP), and diaphragmatic defect size per the CDH Study Group A-D classification were plotted into receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Survival and need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were primary outcomes.
RESULTS: Survival was 69%, and ECMO utilization was 56%. Distribution was 80% left-sided defects. In the survival ROC curve, the area under the curve (AUC) for o/eLHR was 0.73, o/eTLV 0.74, LP 0.73, o/eLHR + LP 0.78, and defect size 0.84 (p = 0.23). The ROC curve for ECMO support showed o/eLHR had an AUC of 0.82, o/eTLV 0.89, LP 0.79, o/eLHR + LP 0.87, and defect size 0.90 (p = 0.19). The AUCs were similar when only left-sided CDH was analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that prenatal evaluation was equivalent to the postnatal diaphragmatic defect classification for predicting survival and need for ECMO in CDH patients.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26537560     DOI: 10.1002/pd.4721

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  6 in total

Review 1.  Highlights on MRI of the fetal body.

Authors:  Lucia Manganaro; Amanda Antonelli; Silvia Bernardo; Federica Capozza; Roberta Petrillo; Serena Satta; Valeria Vinci; Matteo Saldari; Francesca Maccioni; Laura Ballesio; Carlo Catalano
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 2.  Congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

Authors:  Augusto Zani; Wendy K Chung; Jan Deprest; Matthew T Harting; Tim Jancelewicz; Shaun M Kunisaki; Neil Patel; Lina Antounians; Pramod S Puligandla; Richard Keijzer
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 52.329

3.  Expression of hepatic lipid droplets is decreased in the nitrofen model of congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

Authors:  Hiromizu Takahashi; Balazs Kutasy; Florian Friedmacher; Toshiaki Takahashi; Prem Puri
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  A new approach to risk stratification using fetal MRI to predict outcomes in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: the preliminary retrospective single institutional study.

Authors:  Akiko Yokoi; Satoko Ohfuji; Seiji Yoshimoto; Yusuke Sugioka; Yoshinobu Akasaka; Toru Funakoshi
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2018-10

Review 5.  Management of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH): Role of Molecular Genetics.

Authors:  Giulia Cannata; Chiara Caporilli; Federica Grassi; Serafina Perrone; Susanna Esposito
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  The validity of the observed-to-expected lung-to-head ratio in congenital diaphragmatic hernia in an era of standardized neonatal treatment; a multicenter study.

Authors:  Kitty G Snoek; Nina C J Peters; Joost van Rosmalen; Arno F J van Heijst; Alex J Eggink; Esther Sikkel; René M Wijnen; Hanneke IJsselstijn; Titia E Cohen-Overbeek; Dick Tibboel
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.050

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.