4.7 Article

MR relative fetal lung volume in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: Survival and need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 248, 期 1, 页码 240-246

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2481070952

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the accuracy of the absolute fetal lung volume (FLV) measured at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and seven formulas for calculating relative FLV to predict neonatal survival and the need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the research ethics committee, and informed consent was received from all mothers for previous prospective studies. In total, 68 fetuses with CDH were assessed by using MR image FLV measurement within 23-39 weeks gestation. The relative FLV was expressed as a percentage of the predicted lung volume calculated with biometric parameters according to seven formulas previously described in the literature. Applying the area under the curve (AUC), the various relative FLVs and the absolute FLV were investigated for their prognostic accuracy to predict neonatal survival and the need for ECMO therapy. Results: All relative FLVs and the absolute FLV revealed a significant difference in mean lung volume between neonates who survived and neonates who did not survive (P = .001 to P < .001) and measurement accuracy was excellent for each method (AUC, 0.800-0.900). For predicting neonatal ECMO requirement, differences in FLVs were smaller but still significant (P = .05 to < .009) and measurement accuracy was acceptable throughout (AUC, 0.653-0.739). Conclusion: The various relative FLVs and the absolute FLV measured at MR planimetry are each highly valuable in predicting survival in fetuses with CDH. For predicting whether neonatal ECMO therapy is required, the accuracy of the absolute FLV (AUC, 0.68) and that of the relative FLVs (AUC, 0.653-0.739) was acceptable.

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

4.7
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