Outcome of infants presenting with echogenic bowel in the second trimester of pregnancy

<p>Objective Fetal echogenic bowel (FEB) is a soft marker found on second trimester sonography. Our main aim was to determine the outcome of infants who presented with FEB and secondarily to identify additional sonographic findings that might have clinical relevance for the prognosis.</p><p>Design We reviewed all pregnancies in which the diagnosis FEB was made in our Fetal Medicine Unit during 2009-2010 (N=121). We divided all cases into five groups according to additional sonographic findings. Group 1 consisted of cases of isolated FEB, group 2 of FEB associated with dilated bowels, group 3 of FEB with one or two other soft markers, group 4 of FEB with major congenital anomalies or three or more other soft markers, and group 5 consisted of FEB with isolated intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR).</p><p>Results Of 121 cases, five were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 116 cases, 48 (41.4%) were assigned to group 1, 15 (12.9%) to group 2, 15 (12.9%) to group 3, 27 (23.2%) to group 4, and 11 (9.5%) to group 5. The outcome for group 1 was uneventful. In group 2 and 3, two anomalies, anorectal malformation and cystic fibrosis, were detected postnatally (6.7%). In group 4, mortality and morbidity were high (78% resp. 22%). Group 5 also had high mortality (82%) and major morbidity (18%).</p><p>Conclusions If FEB occurs in isolation, it is a benign condition carrying a favourable prognosis. If multiple additional anomalies or early IUGR are observed, the prognosis tends to be less favourable to extremely poor.</p>

Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term

Objective We assessed experience and preferences among term women undergoing induction of labor with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter.  Study Design In 18 of the 29 participating hospitals in the PROBAAT-II trial, women were asked to complete a questionnaire within 24 hours after delivery. We adapted a validated questionnaire about expectancy and experience of labor and asked women whether they would prefer the same method again in a future pregnancy. Results The questionnaire was completed by 502 (72%) of 695 eligible women; 273 (54%) had been randomly allocated to oral misoprostol and 229 (46%) to Foley catheter. Experience of the duration of labor, pain during labor, general satisfaction with labor, and feelings of control and fear related to their expectation were comparable between both the groups. In the oral misoprostol group, 6% of the women would prefer the other method if induction is necessary in future pregnancy, versus 12% in the Foley catheter group (risk ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.90; p = 0.02).  Conclusion Women's experiences of labor after induction with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter are comparable. However, women in the Foley catheter group prefer more often to choose a different method for future inductions