Advertisement

Foetal Venous Anomalies: Experience in a Primary Referral Unit

  • Yogeshkumar S. ChaudharyEmail author
  • Sachin Shridhar Patil
Original Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common congenital anomalies reported. Incidence of CHD is 8 to 9 per 1000 live births in published data worldwide (Chaudhary and Patil in J Fetal Med 5:221, 2018; Hoffman and Kaplan in J Am Coll Cardiol 39(12):1890–1900, 2002; Khalil et al. in Indian Pediatr 31(5):519–527, 1994; Wanni et al. in Heart India 2(3):76–95, 2014). Association of venous anomalies is known and has a significant impact on the perinatal and postnatal outcome. There is no published data about the incidence and spectrum of foetal venous anomalies in India. We tried to find out the incidence and spectrum of foetal venous anomalies in second and third trimester low risk population during routine ultrasound examination in our primary referral unit. 61 foetuses out of 19,929 were found to have venous anomalies with an incidence of 3 per 1000 s and third trimester pregnancies. Persistent left superior vena cava was the most common anomaly seen followed by umbilical vein varyx and absent ductus venosus. 46% of cases showed associated cardiac and extracardiac anomalies.

Keywords

Ultrasound (US) examination Foetal venous anomalies Incidence and spectrum India 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank, Dr. Shrikant T. Ambardekar. M.D., Ultrasound Clinic, Pimpri, Pune 18. (MH) India, for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Hofstaetter C, Plath H, Hansmann M. Prenatal diagnosis of abnormalities of the fetal venous system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(3):231–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gustapane S, Leombroni M, Khalil A, Giacci F, Marrone L, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of persistent left superior vena cava on prenatal ultrasound: associated anomalies, diagnostic accuracy and postnatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(6):701–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moon SK, Cho JY, Kim SH, Lee YH, Song MJ, Moon MH. Imaging findings of various venous anomalies in the fetal liver in antenatal and postnatal assessment: a pictorial review. ECR 2010/C-2896.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah D, Shah N. Sonographic evaluation of umbilical vein. J Fetal Med. 2018;5:185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carvalho JS, Allan LD, Chaoui R, Copel JA, DeVore GR, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines (updated): sonographic screening examination of the fetal heart. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(3):348–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for performance of fetal echocardiography. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(6):1067–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rychik J, Ayres N, Cuneo B, Gotteiner N, Hornberger L, et al. American Society of Echocardiography guidelines and standards for performance of the fetal echocardiogram. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17(7):803–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaudhary YS, Patil SS. Foetal cardiac anomalies: experience in a primary referral centre. J Fetal Med. 2018;5:221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffman JI, Kaplan S. The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(12):1890–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khalil A, Aggarwal R, Thirupuram S, Arora R. Incidence of congenital heart disease among hospital live births in India. Indian Pediatr. 1994;31(5):519–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wanni KA, Shahzad N, Ashraf M, Ahmed K, Jan M, Rasool S. Prevalence and spectrum of congenital heart diseases in children. Heart India. 2014;2(3):76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Fetal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bhakti Sonography ClinicChinchwad, PuneIndia
  2. 2.Niramaya HospitalChinchwad, PuneIndia

Personalised recommendations