4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

High-risk fetal congenital pulmonary airway malformations have a variable response to steroids

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 60-65

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.10.012

关键词

Fetal surgery; Congenital pulmonary airway malformation; Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation; Steroids; Hydrops fetalis; Thoracoamniotic shunt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: Anecdotal reports suggest that maternal steroids may arrest the growth of congenital pulmonary airway malformations (CPAMs), preventing or reversing hydrops. We reviewed our experience with CPAMs to determine the fetal response to steroid therapy. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of all fetal CPAMs from 2004 to 2008. Fetuses with highrisk CPAMs that received at least one course of steroids were identified. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound data were used to classify the CPAMs, identify hydrops fetalis and follow the fetuses poststeroid dosing. Results: Forty-four fetuses with CPAM were identified. Fifteen patients were found to have received at least one course of steroids. Thirteen were hydropic and 2 were nonhydropic. Seven of the 13 hydropic fetuses (54%) showed an initial response to steroid administration, whereas the 2 nonhydropic high-risk fetuses progressed to birth without developing hydrops. Seven of the 15 patients, however, resulted in fetal demise or early postnatal death, giving a survival rate of 53%. Conclusions: High-risk CPAMs have a variable response to steroids. This variable response demonstrates the need for a placebo-controlled randomized study to more accurately determine the effect of steroids on hydrops and CPAM growth rates. Repeated steroid courses may not be helpful, and progression in CPAM volume to head circumference ratio (CVR) or hydrops should prompt open fetal surgery to prevent irreversible fetal insult. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据