Role of ultrasound diagnostics in monitoring the pregnancy complicated by diabetes of a pregnant woman

Česká verzia

Authors: Karol Dókuš ¹; Silvia Dókušová ²; Emil Martinka ²; Ján Danko ¹
Authors place of work: Gynekologicko-pôrodnícka klinika Jesseniovej LF UK a UN Martin, prednosta prof. MUDr. Ján Danko, CSc. ¹; Diabetologické oddelenie, Národný endokrinologický a diabetologický ústav, Ľubochňa, primár doc. MUDr. Emil Martinka, PhD. ²
Published in the journal: Prakt Gyn 2014; 18(2): 121-126
Category: Gynecology and Obstetrics: Review Article

Summary

This review provides a broader view of the importance and role of ultrasound diagnostics in the management of pregnancies complicated with pre-existing diabetes mellitus. A stress is put on the role of ultrasound diagnostics in evaluating the status and development of the fetus at risk due to diabetes mellitus of a pregnant woman. For its clarity, the issue is broken down by trimesters of pregnancy and covers a range of related topics including: dating of pregnancy, early prediction of its complications, ultrasound screening for congenital malformations and fetal aneuploidy, fetal echocardiography and assessment of the status and growth of the fetus at the end of pregnancy.

Key words:
diabetes – malformations – pregnancy – ultrasound diagnostics

Zdroje

1. Berdahl DM, Blaine J, Van Voorhis B et al.: Detection of enlarged yolk sac on early ultrasound is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010; 94(4): 1535–1537.

2. Timor-Tritsch IE, Fuchs KM, Monteagudo A et al. Performing a fetal anatomy scan at the time of first-trimester screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113(2 Pt 1): 402–407.

3. Ebrashy A, El Kateb A, Momtaz M et al. 13–14-week fetal anatomy scan: a 5-year prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35(3): 292–296.

4. Spencer K, Cowans NJ, Spencer CE et al. A re-evaluation of the influence of maternal insulin-dependent diabetes on fetal nuchal translucency thickness and first-trimester maternal serum biochemical markers of aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30(10): 937–940.

5. Plasencia W, Maiz N, Bonino S et al. Uterine artery Doppler at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30(5): 742–749.

6. Herraiz I, Arbues J, Camano I et al. Application of a first- trimester prediction model for pre-eclampsia based on uterine arteries and maternal history in high-risk pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29(12): 1123–1129.

7. Hackmon R, Le Scale KB, Horani J et al. Is severe macrosomia manifested at 11–14 weeks of gestation? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32(6): 740–743.

8. Poon LC, Karagiannis G, Stratieva V et al. First-trimester prediction of macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011; 29(2): 139–147.

9. Poon LC, Karagiannis G, Staboulidou I et al. Reference range of birth weight with gestation and first-trimester prediction of small- for-gestation neonates. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31(1): 58–65.

10. Bashiri A, Shizaf B, Burstein E et al. Three dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of caudal regression syndrome at 14 gestational weeks. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009; 280(3): 505–507.

11. Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Effect of maternal obesity on the ultrasound detection of anomalous fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113(5): 1001–1007.

12. Davey BT, Seubert DE, Phoon CK. Indications for fetal echocardiography high referral, low yield? Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009; 64(6): 405–415.

13. Odibo AO, Coassola KM, Stamilio DM et al. Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26(1): 39–44.

14. Sekhavat S, Kishore N, Levine JC. Screening fetal echocardiography in diabetic mothers with normal findings on detailed anatomic survey. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35(2): 178–182.

15. Sacks DA. Etiology, detection, and management of fetal macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 50(4): 980–989.

16. Persson M, Norman M, Hanson U. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in type 1 diabetic pregnancies: a large, population-based study. Diabetes Care 2009; 32(11): 2005–2009.

17. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I et al. Sonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia: the consequences of false diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29(2): 225–230.

18. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E et al. Large cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord as a predictor of fetal macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30(6): 861–866.

19. Ben-Haroush A, Melamed N, Mashiach R et al. Use of the amniotic fluid index combined with estimated fetal weight within 10 days of delivery for prediction of macrosomia at birth. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27(7): 1029–1032.

20. Higgins MF, Russell NM, Mulcahy CH et al. Fetal anterior abdominal wall thickness in diabetic pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 140(1): 43–47.

21. Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Vimercati A et al. Estimation of fetal weight by measurement of fetal thigh soft-tissue thickness in the late third trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31(3): 314–320.

22. Lee W, Balasubramaniam M, Deter RL, et al. New fetal weight estimation models using fractional limb volume. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34(5): 556–565.

23. Dudley DJ. Diabetic-associated stillbirth: incidence, pathophysiology, and prevention. Clin Perinatol 2007; 34(4): 611–626.

24. Graves CR. Antepartum fetal surveillance and timing of delivery in the pregnancy complicated by diabetes mellitus. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 50(4): 1007–1013.

25. Hatem MA, Zielinsky P, Hatem DM et al. Assessment of diastolic ventricular function in fetuses of diabetic mothers using tissue Doppler. Cardiol Young 2008; 18(3): 297–302.