4.5 Article

Fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging and long-term neurodevelopmental impairment

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 125, Issue 3, Pages 237-240

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.12.007

Keywords

Fetal brain injury; Fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging; Long-term neurodevelopmental impairment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the incidence of fetal brain injury by fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pregnancies complicated with preterm labor (PL), preterm premature rupture of the membranes (PPROM), and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), and to compare fetal brain MRI with prenatal surveillance methods, and with immediate and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome. Methods: Between February 2007 and January 2009, high-risk pregnancies were analyzed by MRI at 1.5 Tesla after 24 weeks of gestation at the Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. Long-term outcome was defined as neurodevelopmental outcome at 24 months. Results: Among 70 pregnancies analyzed, 40.0% had abnormal fetal brain MRI. The highest incidence occurred in the PL group. There was no correlation between abnormal MRI and fetal surveillance methods (ultrasound, Doppler blood flow analysis, cardiotocography, biophysical profile) or immediate neonatal outcome (1-minute Apgar score, umbilical cord pH). Via MRI, fetal brain injury would have been diagnosed for 45.7% of fetuses with a long-term neurodevelopmental handicap. Binary logistic regression showed that, as compared with other surveillance methods, fetal brain MRI was the best predictor of long-term neurodevelopmental disability. Conclusion: FL, IUGR, and PPROM were associated with an early intrauterine CNS insult that was not accurately detected by existing prenatal testing options. (C) 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available