Advertisement

Long-Term Outcome of Fetuses with Soft Marker and Without Genetic or Structural Abnormality

  • Migraci Tosun
  • Emel Kurtoglu OzdesEmail author
  • Erdal Malatyalioglu
  • Erhan Yavuz
  • Handan Celik
  • Fatma Devran Bildircin
  • Kubilay Canga
  • Arif Kokcu
  • Gonul Ogur
Original Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine long-term outcome of infants with isolated or multiple soft markers but no structural or chromosomal abnormalities.

Methods

A retrospective study of 78 pregnant women who were referred for amniocentesis and found to have soft markers including echogenic intracardiac focus/foci (EIF), echogenic bowel (EB), unilateral or bilateral choroid plexus cysts, (UCPCs or BCPCs) mild pyelectasis and single umbilical artery but no structural anomalies and outcomes of the liveborns with a 4- to 9-year follow-up was conducted.

Results

Among 28 fetuses with EIF, allergic asthma and epilepsy were diagnosed in two liveborns. We followed up nine pregnancies with EB, epilepsy was present in one case. Allergic asthma was detected in both UCPCs and BCPCs, whereas epilepsy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were diagnosed in two liveborns with BCPCs. Twelve liveborns with multiple soft markers were evaluated; no pathology was detected in most of them except one case of allergic asthma, one case of hearing impairment and one case of ADHD.

Conclusions

This study shows longer-term favorable outcomes of the liveborns with isolated or multiple soft markers without any aneuploidy and may provide insight into this debated point.

Keywords

Fetus Ultrasonography Soft marker Follow-up Long-term Outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present study was conducted on 78 pregnant women with 15–22 weeks of singleton gestation who were referred to Ondokuz Mayis University Fetal Medicine Unit between January 2005 and January 2010 for amniocentesis and found to have isolated or multiple soft markers but no structural anomalies at the same time of procedure; and outcomes of these pregnancies and the liveborns.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statements

The study was approved by Ondokuz Mayis University Ethics Committee, and the patient records/information was anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from each individual participant.

References

  1. 1.
    Bethune M. Literature review and suggested protocol for managing ultrasound soft markers for Down syndrome: thickened nuchal fold, echogenic bowel, shortened femur, shortened humerus, pyelectasis and absent or hypoplastic nasal bone. Australas Radiol. 2007;51(3):218–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Orzechowski KM, Berghella V. Isolated fetal pyelectasis and the risk of Down syndrome: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(6):615–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahman A, Axelsson O, Maras G, et al. Ultrasonographic fetal soft markers in a low-risk population: prevalence, association with trisomies and invasive tests. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(4):367–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stefanovic V. Soft markers for aneuploidy following reassuring first trimester screening: what should be done? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(2):151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaijomaa M, Ulander VM, Ryynanen M, et al. The significance of the second trimester sonographic soft markers in pregnancies after normal first trimester screening. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(8):804–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buiter HD, Holswilder-Olde Scholtenhuis MA, Bouman K, et al. Outcome of infants presenting with echogenic bowel in the second trimester of pregnancy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(3):F256–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Oronzo MA. Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: an ultrasonographic marker for adverse fetal and neonatal outcome? J Prenat Med. 2011;5(1):9–13.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta G, Aggarwal S, Phadke SR. Intracardiac echogenic focus and fetal outcome. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38(9):466–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shakoor S, Ismail H, Munim S. Intracardiac echogenic focus and fetal outcome—review of cases from a tertiary care centre in Karachi, Pakistan. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(1):2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ekin A, Gezer C, Taner CE, et al. The effect of associated structural malformations in the prediction of chromosomal abnormality risk of fetuses with echogenic bowel. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dagklis T, Plasencia W, Maiz N, Duarte L, Nicolaides KH. Choroid plexus cyst, intracardiac echogenic focus, hyperechogenic bowel and hydronephrosis in screening for trisomy 21 at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(2):132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ali MK, Shazly SA, Ali AH, et al. Ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy in second trimester fetuses. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2012;17(3):145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shakoor Shafia, Ismail Humera, Munim Shama. Intracardiac echogenic focus and fetal outcome—review of cases from a tertiary care centre in Karachi, Pakistan. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(1):2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saha Esha, Mullins Edward William Samuel, Paramasivam Gowrishankar, et al. Perinatal outcomes of fetal echogenic bowel. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(8):758–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim MK, Kim MJ, An JJ, et al. Outcome of isolated fetal renal pyelectasis diagnosed during midtrimester screening ultrasound and cut-off value to predict a persistent or progressive pyelectasis in utero. J Perinat Med. 2013;41(4):401–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Masson P, De Luca G, Tapia N, et al. Postnatal investigation and outcome of isolated fetal renal pelvis dilatation. Arch Pediatr. 2009;16(8):1103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arcos-Machancoses JV, Marín-Reina P, Romaguera-Salort E, et al. Postnatal development of fetuses with a single umbilical artery: differences between malformed and non-malformed infants. World J Pediatr. 2015;11(1):61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ashwal E, Melamed N, Hiersch L, et al. The impact of isolated single umbilical artery on labor and delivery outcome. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(6):581–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tülek F, Kahraman A, Taşkın S, et al. Determination of risk factors and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies complicated by isolated single umbilical artery in Turkish population. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2015;16(1):21–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Araujo Júnior E, Palma-Dias R, Martins WP, et al. Congenital heart disease and adverse perinatal outcome in fetuses with confirmed isolated single functioning umbilical artery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;35(1):85–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Irani S, Ahmadi F, Javam M, et al. Outcome of isolated fetal choroid plexus cyst detected in prenatal sonography among infertile patients referred to Royan Institute: a 3-year study. Iran J Reprod Med. 2015;13(9):571–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ozkan ZS, Gilgin H, Aygün HB, et al. Our clinical experience about prenatal diagnosis and neonatal outcomes of fetal central nervous system anomalies. Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(3):502–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of MedicineOndokuz Mayis UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Avrasya Medi-tech HospitalOrduTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of MedicineOndokuz Mayis UniversitySamsunTurkey

Personalised recommendations