Fetal Cardiac Anomalies

Balci, Burcin Karamustafaoglu/0000-0001-5196-4502WOS: 000443367100007This review is intended to give a practical guide to ultrasound recognition of the commonly observed fetal cardiac abnormalities and their key features on standard imaging planes during antenatal anomaly screening examinations. All information provided here, on the diagnosis and management of fetal cardiac anomalies, is based on the personal experiences of the authors and their expert reviews of the selected previously published studies

Incidence of echogenic amniotic fluid at term pregnancy and its association with meconium

Balci, Burcin Karamustafaoglu/0000-0001-5196-4502WOS: 000427466800014PubMed: 29362926The presence of echogenic amniotic fluid at term gestation on sonography is uncommon. The aim of our study was to investigate the incidence of echogenic amniotic fluid at term pregnancy, and to determine how often echogenic amniotic fluid was associated with meconium. All singleton pregnant women at term who were admitted to our labor unit and who delivered within 24 h of the ultrasound scan were included in the study. For each woman, gestational age, maternal age, gravidity, parity, the character of the amniotic fluid on ultrasound at admission (clear or echogenic), birth weight, and the character of the amniotic fluid on artificial or spontaneous rupture of membranes or on cesarean section (clear/with vernix/meconium-stained) were recorded. When amniotic fluid was assessed on ultrasound, among 278 patients, 9 (3.2%) patients' amniotic fluid was echogenic. When the amniotic fluid was assessed at delivery, the rates of meconium-stained amniotic fluid in women with and without echogenic amniotic fluid were 44.44% (4/9) and 9.3% (25/269), respectively; the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.035). We found a sensitivity and specificity of 13.79 and 97.99%, and a positive and negative predictive value of 44.44 and 90.7%, respectively, for echogenic amniotic fluid seen on ultrasound in identifying meconium-stained amniotic fluid. The incidence of echogenic amniotic fluid at term gestation was found as 3.2 and 44.4% of cases of echogenic amniotic fluid was associated with meconium

How to calculate median Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A values to predict preeclampsia? Do We Need a Newer Formula?

Objective: Preeclampsia is one of the major issues in maternal–fetal medicine. Early risk stratification may be beneficial, so is the aim of several researches. Our goal is to investigate whether PAPP-A MoM calculated for first trimester Down's syndrome screening or MoM calculated according to Ong’s formula can be used to predict the risk of preeclampsia or do we need another method to calculate PAPP-A MoM derived from non preeclamptic cases. Study Design: For this retrospective study, data of randomly selected 150 singleton pregnant women who did not develop preeclampsia are used to create a formula to calculate median value of PAPP-A. PAPP-A values of this subgroup are plotted against gestational age and curve fit analysis is done to determine best fitted regression line to get a formula to calculate median value of our cases. PAPP-A MoM values are calculated for each subject according to Ong’s formula and our formula. We already had MoM values derived from first trimester screening. ROC curve and Delong’s pairwise comparison analyses are used to investigate which MoM value is more predictive for preeclampsia. Results: Although the area under curve value of MoM values derived from this study was the highest, DeLong’s pairwise comparison analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the three curves. Conclusion: PAPP-A MoM calculation specific to preeclampsia does not seem to be necessary; PAPP-A MoM obtained from first trimester aneuploidy scan can be used to predict preeclampsia

How to calculate median Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A values to predict preeclampsia? Do We Need a Newer Formula?

Objective: Preeclampsia is one of the major issues in maternal–fetal medicine. Early risk stratification may be beneficial, so is the aim of several researches. Our goal is to investigate whether PAPP-A MoM calculated for first trimester Down's syndrome screening or MoM calculated according to Ong’s formula can be used to predict the risk of preeclampsia or do we need another method to calculate PAPP-A MoM derived from non preeclamptic cases. Study Design: For this retrospective study, data of randomly selected 150 singleton pregnant women who did not develop preeclampsia are used to create a formula to calculate median value of PAPP-A. PAPP-A values of this subgroup are plotted against gestational age and curve fit analysis is done to determine best fitted regression line to get a formula to calculate median value of our cases. PAPP-A MoM values are calculated for each subject according to Ong’s formula and our formula. We already had MoM values derived from first trimester screening. ROC curve and Delong’s pairwise comparison analyses are used to investigate which MoM value is more predictive for preeclampsia. Results: Although the area under curve value of MoM values derived from this study was the highest, DeLong’s pairwise comparison analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the three curves. Conclusion: PAPP-A MoM calculation specific to preeclampsia does not seem to be necessary; PAPP-A MoM obtained from first trimester aneuploidy scan can be used to predict preeclampsia