The prognostic role of CRL discordance in first trimester ultrasound
Author:
Fasoulakis Zacharias1ORCID, Sapantzoglou Kimonas1, Theodora Marianna1ORCID, Daskalakis George1, Kurjak Asim2, Antsaklis Panagiotis1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , National and Kapodistrian University of Athens , Athens , Greece 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Medical School University of Zagreb , Zagreb , Croatia
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
In the first trimester, intertwin crown-rump length (CRL) discordance has emerged as a notable factor linked to adverse perinatal health effects. It is frequently employed as a basis for counseling parents regarding potential adverse pregnancy outcomes. Despite its established association with adverse outcomes, the significance of CRL discordance in substantially predicting pregnancy problems and its efficacy in pregnancy screening remain subjects of ongoing discussion. The aim of this manuscript is to present current knowledge on CRL discordance.
Methods
PubMed was searched for related articles with terms “Crown-Rump length”, “Prenatal Screening”, “Twin pregnancy”, “Discordance”.
Results
Twenty-two studies were included in our study with six reporting data on monochorionic and 16 assessing the correlation between CRL discordance and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Fetal loss at the 20th and 24th week of the pregnancy, SGA neonates, pre-term delivery (32 weeks), perinatal death (24 weeks) are all reported adverse outcomes associated with CRL discordance. The reported cut-off for increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes is a discordance of at least 10% or more.
Conclusions
Increased CRL (>10 %) discordance is linked to a higher risk of sFGR in both monochorionic and dichorionic pregnancies, fetal loss, and preterm delivery.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference28 articles.
1. Johansen, ML, Oldenburg, A, Rosthøj, S, Cohn Maxild, J, Rode, L, Tabor, A. Crown–rump length discordance in the first trimester: a predictor of adverse outcome in twin pregnancies? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43:277–83, https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12534. 2. Oldenburg, A, Rode, L, Bødker, B, Ersbak, V, Holmskov, A, Jørgensen, FS, et al.. Influence of chorionicity on perinatal outcome in a large cohort of Danish twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:69–74, https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10057. 3. Acosta-Rojas, R, Becker, J, Munoz-Abellana, B, Ruiz, C, Carreras, E, Gratacos, E; Catalunya and Balears Monochorionic Network. Twin chorionicity and the risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;96:98–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.11.002. 4. Suzuki, S, Murata, T. The influence of assisted reproductive technology on growth discordance in dichorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther 2007;22:372–6, https://doi.org/10.1159/000103299. 5. El Kateb, A, Nasr, B, Nassar, M, Bernard, JP, Ville, Y. First-trimester ultrasound examination and the outcome of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:922–5, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1802.
|
|