4.6 Article

Chromosomal abnormalities and structural defects in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency at a Chinese tertiary medical center

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1158554

关键词

increased NT; cut-off; chromosomal abnormalities; structural defects; Chinese population

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study examined the pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with increased NT thickness (>=95th centile) at 11-14 weeks of gestation between January 2020 and November 2020. The results showed that increased NT was associated with a higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities and structural defects. Chromosomal abnormalities and structural defects were more likely to be detected when NT thickness was between the 95th centile and 2.5 mm.
ObjectivesTo explore the pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with increased NT thickness. MethodsThis was a retrospective study of fetuses with increased NT (>= 95th centile) at 11-14 weeks of gestation between January 2020 and November 2020. ResultsAmong 264 fetuses with increased NT, the median of CRL and NT was 61.2 mm and 2.41 mm. Among them, 132 pregnancy women chose invasive prenatal diagnosis (43 cases of chorionic villus sampling (CVS), 89 cases of amniocentesis). Eventually, 16 cases of chromosomal abnormalities were discovered, including 6 cases (6.4%) of trisomy 21, 4 cases (3%) of trisomy 18, 1 case (0.8%) of 45, XO, 1 case (0.8%) of 47, XXY and 4 cases (3.03%) of CNV abnormalities. The major structural defects included hydrops (6.4%), cardiac defects (3%), and urinary anomalies (2.7%). The incidences of chromosomal abnormalities and structural defects in the NT < 2.5 mm group were 1.3 and 6%, while the incidences were 8.8 and 28.9% in the NT >= 2.5 group. ConclusionIncreased NT was associated with high risk of chromosomal abnormalities and structural anomalies. Chromosomal abnormalities and structural defects could be detected when NT thickness was between 95th centile and 2.5 mm.

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

4.6
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