D L Rolnik1, F da Silva Costa1,2, D Sahota3, J Hyett4, A McLennan4,5. 1. Perinatal Services, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University and Monash Ultrasound for Women, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong. 4. Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 5. Sydney Ultrasound for Women, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of mean uterine artery (UtA) pulsatility index (PI) measurement in a first-trimester pre-eclampsia screening program. METHODS: Consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy attending first-trimester screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities also had combined screening for pre-eclampsia based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm, at a large practice in Sydney, Australia, from May 2014 to February 2017. Distributions of mean UtA-PI multiples of the median (MoM) on a logarithmic scale were plotted in relation to the normal median with 95% CI for each operator and for each month. Central tendency and dispersion and cumulative sum charts were produced. Mean UtA-PI MoM values between 0.95 and 1.05 were considered ideal and those between 0.90 and 1.10 were considered acceptable. The screen-positive rates for preterm pre-eclampsia in different groups of sonographers according to their mean log10 UtA-PI MoM were calculated and compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 21 010 women attended for first-trimester ultrasound and had screening for pre-eclampsia. The overall median UtA-PI MoM was 1.042 (interquartile range (IQR), 0.85-1.26). Of 46 sonographers, 42 (91.3%) performed more than 50 examinations and, of those, 41 (97.6%) measured UtA-PI within the acceptable range. Sonographers measuring UtA-PI MoM on average below 0.95 and those measuring it above 1.05 had, respectively, lower and higher screen-positive rates when compared with those with measurements within the 0.95-1.05 UtA-PI MoM interval (7.2% and 13.2% vs 11.2%, respectively, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: UtA Doppler is measured well among trained operators when following an established protocol. While slight variations are expected, systematic error in this measurement impacts on the screen-positive rate. Therefore, a quality control process should be in place and retraining of staff may be required.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of mean uterine artery (UtA) pulsatility index (PI) measurement in a first-trimester pre-eclampsia screening program. METHODS: Consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy attending first-trimester screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities also had combined screening for pre-eclampsia based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm, at a large practice in Sydney, Australia, from May 2014 to February 2017. Distributions of mean UtA-PI multiples of the median (MoM) on a logarithmic scale were plotted in relation to the normal median with 95% CI for each operator and for each month. Central tendency and dispersion and cumulative sum charts were produced. Mean UtA-PI MoM values between 0.95 and 1.05 were considered ideal and those between 0.90 and 1.10 were considered acceptable. The screen-positive rates for preterm pre-eclampsia in different groups of sonographers according to their mean log10 UtA-PI MoM were calculated and compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 21 010 women attended for first-trimester ultrasound and had screening for pre-eclampsia. The overall median UtA-PI MoM was 1.042 (interquartile range (IQR), 0.85-1.26). Of 46 sonographers, 42 (91.3%) performed more than 50 examinations and, of those, 41 (97.6%) measured UtA-PI within the acceptable range. Sonographers measuring UtA-PI MoM on average below 0.95 and those measuring it above 1.05 had, respectively, lower and higher screen-positive rates when compared with those with measurements within the 0.95-1.05 UtA-PI MoM interval (7.2% and 13.2% vs 11.2%, respectively, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: UtA Doppler is measured well among trained operators when following an established protocol. While slight variations are expected, systematic error in this measurement impacts on the screen-positive rate. Therefore, a quality control process should be in place and retraining of staff may be required.