Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 2024. 3(99): 25-31. doi: 10.15574/PP.2024.3(99).253
Grebinichenko G. O., Tarapurova O. M., Nikitchina T. V., Medvedenko G. F., Velychko A. V., Rachenko K. V.
SI “Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academical O.M. Luk’yanova of NAMS of Ukraine”, Kyiv

For citation: Grebinichenko GO, Tarapurova OM, Nikitchina TV, Medvedenko GF, Velychko AV, Rachenko KV. (2024). The role of assessment of provisional organs in the diagnosis of fetal pathology. Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 3(99): 25-31. doi: 10.15574/PP.2024.3(99).2531.
Article received: Jun 03, 2024. Accepted for publication: Sep 04, 2024.

Aim – to evaluate the potential of using data on provisional organs’ changes and fetal growth restriction (FGR) for the diagnosis of fetal pathology, including severe/sublethal pathology – multiple malformations and chromosomal abnormalities (CA).
Materials and methods. The results of complex prenatal examinations of 2954 high-risk pregnant women performed in 2020-2022 were analyzed. The rate of FGR, placenta, umbilical cord and amniotic fluid changes were compared depending on the presence of fetal pathology by Chi-Square (χ²) test and odds ratio (OR) calculation.
Results. 853 cases of fetal pathology (28.9%) were diagnosed, including cases of 658 anatomical malformations and 195 CA. 264 observations of multiple malformations and CA were allocated to the subgroup of severe pathology. The rates of provisional organs’ changes were significantly higher in presence of fetal pathology: FGR in the control group 2.0%, in the group of fetal pathology 19.5%, in the group of severe pathology 36.7%; single umbilical artery in 1.1%, 9.3% and 14.8%, respectively, velamentous/marginal cord insertion in 1.95%, 7.4% and 8.3%, respectively. OR of fetal pathology in presence of FGR was 11.6, in presence of single umbilical artery 9.2, in presence of FGR combined with polyhydramnios 97.9; for single umbilical artery combined with polyhydramnios 30, combined with oligohydramnios, combined with FGR 13.6. OR of severe pathology in presence of FGR was 27.8, for combination of FGR and polyhydramnios 172.1; in presence of single umbilical artery 15.7, its combination with polyhydramnios 57.2, with FGR 35.5. These markers had low sensitivity, high specificity and accuracy.
Conclusions. Early FGR, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, single umbilical artery, velamentous/marginal umbilical cord insertion, structural placenta changes are associated with the higher rate of fetal pathology. These findings must prompt women’s referral to tertiary prenatal diagnosis departments and may be an indication for prenatal invasive procedures.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The research protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the participating institution. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies.
No conflict of interests was declared by the authors.
Keywords: prenatal diagnosis, chromosomal abnormalities, congenital malformations, fetal growth restriction, single umbilical artery, velamentous umbilical cord insertion, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, placental structural changes.
REFERENCES

1. Adam MJ, Enderle I, Le Bouar G et al. (2021). Performance of diagnostic ultrasound to identify causes of hydramnios. Prenatal diagnosis. 41(1): 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5825; PMid:32920845

2. Albalawi A, Brancusi F, Askin F, Ehsanipoor R, Wang J et al. (2017). Placental Characteristics of Fetuses with Congenital Heart Disease. Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 36(5): 965-972. https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.16.04023; PMid:28258617

3. Antypkin YuH, Sliepov OK, Veselskyi VL, Hordiienko IIu, Hrasiukova NI, Avramenko TV et al. (2014). Suchasni orhanizatsiino-metodychni pidkhody do perynatalnoi diahnostyky ta khirurhichnoho likuvannia pryrodzhenykh vitalnykh vad rozvytku u novonarodzhenykh ditei v umovakh perynatalnoho tsentru. Zhurnal Natsionalnoi akademii medychnykh nauk Ukrainy. 20(2): 189-199.

4. Baudin M, Herbez C, Guellec et al. (2023). Predictive factors for survival in patients with oligohydramnios secondary to antenatal kidney disease. Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany). 38(6): 1783-1792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-022-05800-1; PMid:36409365

5. Bebbington M. (2022). Barriers to accessing care: challenges in early prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. 60(3): 307-308. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26040; PMid:36047740

6. Drukker L, Bradburn E, Rodriguez GB, Roberts NW, Impey L, Papageorghiou AT. (2021). How often do we identify fetal abnormalities during routine third-trimester ultrasound? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 128(2): 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16468; PMid:32790134

7. Duderina YV. (2023). Placental factors in pregnant women with isolated heart disease of the fetus. Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 3(95): 6-11. https://doi.org/10.15574/PP.2023.95.6

8. Ebbing C, Kessler J, Moster D, Rasmussen S. (2020). Single umbilical artery and risk of congenital malformation: population-based study in Norway. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. 55(4): 510-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20359; PMid:31132166

9. Ficara A, Syngelaki A, Hammami A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. (2020). Value of routine ultrasound examination at 35-37 weeks' gestation in diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 55(1): 75-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20857; PMid:31595569

10. Gordienko І, Grebinichenko Г, Tarapurova О, Velychko А. (2019). Variants of prenatal ultrasound imaging of omphalocele in the fetus. Radiation Diagnostics, Radiation Therapy. (4): 11-22. https://doi.org/10.37336/2707-0700-2019-4-1

11. Grebinichenko GO, Gordienko IYu, Sliepov OK. (2020). Clinical outcomes in congenital diaphragmatic hernia of the fetus. Health of woman. 8(154): 47-53. https://doi.org/10.15574/HW.2020.154.47

12. ICD. (2020). ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (Version: 09/2020). URL: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f714000734.

13. Kaur A, Hornberger LK, Fruitman D et al. (2022). Trends in the Prenatal Detection of Major Congenital Heart Disease in Alberta from 2008-2018. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada: JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC. 44(8): 895-900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2022.03.020; PMid:35513257

14. Kominiarek MA, Zork N, Pierce SM, Zollinger T. (2011). Perinatal outcome in the live-born infant with prenatally diagnosed omphalocele. American journal of perinatology. 28(8): 627-634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1276737; PMid:21544770 PMCid:PMC3646659

15. Luk'yanova IS, Gordienko IYu, Medvedenko GF, Grebinichenko GO, Tarasyuk BA. (2022). Pathology of provisional organs, complications of pregnancy and labor, and the condition of newborn with congenital defects of the urinary and nervous systems. Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 3(91): 15-21. https://doi.org/10.15574/PP.2022.91.15

16. Massalska D, Bijok J, Kucińska-Chahwan A et al. (2020). Maternal complications in molecularly confirmed diandric and digynic triploid pregnancies: single institution experience and literature review. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 301(5): 1139-1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05515-4; PMid:32219520 PMCid:PMC7181501

17. Melamed N, Baschat A, Yinon Y et al. (2021, Mar). FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet.152; Suppl 1: 3-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13522; PMid:33740264 PMCid:PMC8252743

18. Sadler TW. (2018). Langman's Medical Embryology. 14th ed. LWW Fifteenth, North American edition 2023: 472.

19. Sagi-Dain L, Peleg A, Sagi S. (2017). Risk for chromosomal aberrations in apparently isolated intrauterine growth restriction: A systematic review. Prenatal diagnosis. 37(11): 1061-1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5160; PMid:28944967

20. Santana EFM, Castello RG, Rizzo G et al. (2022). Placental and Umbilical Cord Anomalies Diagnosed by Two- and Three-Dimensional Ultrasound. Diagnostics (Basel). 12(11): 2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112810; PMid:36428871 PMCid:PMC9689386

21. Stanek J. (2019). Patterns of Placental Injury in Congenital Anomalies in Second Half of Pregnancy. Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society. 22(6): 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1093526619852869; PMid:31138053

22. Van Nisselrooij AEL, Teunissen AKK, Clur et al. (2020). Why are congenital heart defects being missed?. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 55(6): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20358; PMid:31131945 PMCid:PMC7317409

23. Walter A, Calite E, Berg C, Gembruch U, Müller A, Geipel A. (2022). Prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction with polyhydramnios, etiology and impact on postnatal outcome. Scientific reports. 12(1): 415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04371-9; PMid:35013541 PMCid:PMC8748543