为什么会漏诊先天性心脏病?

Why are congenital heart defects being missed?

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Department of Paediatric Cardiology, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;55(6):747-757. doi: 10.1002/uog.20358.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Congenital heart defects (CHD) are still missed frequently in prenatal screening programs, which can result in severe morbidity or even death. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of fetal heart images, obtained during the second-trimester standard anomaly scan (SAS) in cases of CHD, to explore factors associated with a missed prenatal diagnosis.

METHODS

In this case-control study, all cases of a fetus born with isolated severe CHD in the Northwestern region of The Netherlands, between 2015 and 2016, were extracted from the PRECOR registry. Severe CHD was defined as need for surgical repair in the first year postpartum. Each cardiac view (four-chamber view (4CV), three-vessel (3V) view and left and right ventricular outflow tract (LVOT, RVOT) views) obtained during the SAS was scored for technical correctness on a scale of 0 to 5 by two fetal echocardiography experts, blinded to the diagnosis of CHD and whether it was detected prenatally. Quality parameters of the cardiac examination were compared between cases in which CHD was detected and those in which it was missed on the SAS. Regression analysis was used to assess the association of sonographer experience and of screening-center experience with the cardiac examination quality score.

RESULTS

A total of 114 cases of isolated severe CHD at birth were analyzed, of which 58 (50.9%) were missed and 56 (49.1%) were detected on the SAS. The defects comprised transposition of the great arteries (17%), aortic coarctation (16%), tetralogy of Fallot (10%), atrioventricular septal defect (6%), aortic valve stenosis (5%), ventricular septal defect (18%) and other defects (28%). No differences were found in fetal position, obstetric history, maternal age or body mass index (BMI) or gestational age at examination between missed and detected cases. Ninety-two cases had available cardiac images from the SAS. Compared with the detected group, the missed group had significantly lower cardiac examination quality scores (adequate score (≥ 12) in 32% vs 64%; P = 0.002), rate of proper use of magnification (58% vs 84%; P = 0.01) and quality scores for each individual cardiac plane (4CV (2.7 vs 3.9; P < 0.001), 3V view (3.0 vs 3.8; P = 0.02), LVOT view (1.9 vs 3.3; P < 0.001) and RVOT view (1.9 vs 3.3; P < 0.001)). In 49% of missed cases, the lack of detection was due to poor adaptational skills resulting in inadequate images in which the CHD was not clearly visible; in 31%, the images showed an abnormality (mainly septal defects and aortic arch anomalies) which had not been recognized at the time of the scan; and, in 20%, the cardiac planes had been obtained properly but showed normal anatomy. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the volume of SAS performed per year by each sonographer was associated significantly with quality score of the cardiac examination.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of adaptational skills when performing the SAS, as opposed to circumstantial factors such as BMI or fetal position, appears to play an important role in failure to detect CHD prenatally. The quality of the cardiac views was inadequate significantly more often in undetected compared with detected cases. Despite adequate quality of the images, CHD was not recognized in 31% of cases. A high volume of SAS performed by each sonographer in a large ultrasound center contributes significantly to prenatal detection. In 20% of undetected cases, CHD was not visible even though the quality of the images was good. © 2019 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

摘要

目的

先天性心脏病(CHD)在产前筛查项目中仍经常漏诊,这可能导致严重的发病率,甚至死亡。本研究的目的是评估荷兰西北部地区在胎儿心脏标准异常扫描(SAS)中获得的胎儿心脏图像质量,并探讨与产前漏诊相关的因素。

方法

在这项病例对照研究中,从 PRECOR 登记处提取了 2015 年至 2016 年期间荷兰西北部地区出生的孤立性严重 CHD 胎儿的所有病例。严重 CHD 定义为产后第一年需要手术修复。由两名胎儿超声心动图专家对 SAS 中获得的每个心脏切面(四腔心切面(4CV)、三血管切面(3V)和左、右心室流出道切面(LVOT、RVOT))的技术正确性进行评分,范围为 0 至 5 分,两位专家均对 CHD 的诊断和是否在产前检出均不知情。比较了 CHD 在 SAS 上检出和漏诊的病例的心脏检查质量参数。回归分析用于评估超声医师经验和筛查中心经验与心脏检查质量评分的相关性。

结果

共分析了 114 例孤立性严重 CHD 出生病例,其中 58 例(50.9%)在 SAS 上漏诊,56 例(49.1%)在 SAS 上检出。缺陷包括大动脉转位(17%)、主动脉缩窄(16%)、法洛四联症(10%)、房室间隔缺损(6%)、主动脉瓣狭窄(5%)、室间隔缺损(18%)和其他缺陷(28%)。漏诊组和检出组在胎儿位置、产科史、母亲年龄或体重指数(BMI)或检查时的孕龄方面无差异。92 例有 SAS 的心脏图像。与检出组相比,漏诊组的心脏检查质量评分明显较低(≥12 分的比例为 32% vs 64%;P=0.002),适当使用放大倍率的比例较低(58% vs 84%;P=0.01),每个单独的心脏切面的质量评分也较低(4CV(2.7 分 vs 3.9 分;P<0.001)、3V 切面(3.0 分 vs 3.8 分;P=0.02)、LVOT 切面(1.9 分 vs 3.3 分;P<0.001)和 RVOT 切面(1.9 分 vs 3.3 分;P<0.001))。在 49%的漏诊病例中,漏诊的原因是由于适应性技能不足,导致 CHD 无法清晰显示的图像不充分;31%的病例显示异常(主要是间隔缺损和主动脉弓异常),但在扫描时未被识别;20%的心脏切面获得正确,但显示正常解剖结构。多变量回归分析显示,每位超声医师每年进行的 SAS 数量与心脏检查质量评分显著相关。

结论

与 BMI 或胎儿位置等环境因素相比,执行 SAS 时适应性技能不足似乎在产前未能检测到 CHD 方面起着重要作用。与检出组相比,未检出组的心脏切面质量明显不足。尽管图像质量良好,但在 31%的病例中仍未识别出 CHD。每个超声医师在大型超声中心进行的大量 SAS 显著有助于产前检测。在 20%的未检出病例中,即使图像质量良好,CHD 也不可见。© 2019 作者。超声在妇产科由约翰威立父子有限公司出版代表国际妇产科超声学会。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0f62/7317409/8eabeb9c21a1/UOG-55-747-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索