The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study☆,☆☆,★,★★
Section snippets
Study design
During the study period January 1, 1990–June 30, 1993, the 61 centers participating in the Multicentric Eurofetus Study recorded prospectively all diagnoses of malformation made during pregnancy by ultrasonographic examination. Also included were the defects found at birth that had not been identified despite examination carried out in the participating centers. These centers were distributed throughout 14 countries in Europe (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, France, Great Britain, Hungary,
Abnormalities observed
During the study period 4615 malformations were recorded in 3686 fetuses, representing 1.25 abnormalities per malformed fetus. Of these 3686 malformed fetuses, 2907 (78.9%) had a single malformation, 484 (13.1%) had 2 malformations, and 295 (8.0%) had ≥3 malformations (including ICD-9 code 7597). In addition, 266 malformed fetuses had a chromosomal abnormality that was not recorded as an additional malformation.
For the total study population, the most common malformations were those of the
Comment
The Eurofetus Study included 3685 fetuses with structural malformations and represents the largest study to date on the evaluation of ultrasonographic screening for such defects. In view of the diversity of congenital malformations and the differences in performance of ultrasonographic diagnosis as a function of the type of malformation, only a survey of a large population can provide reliable data on routine ultrasonographic screening.
In our study the overall sensitivity of prenatal
Acknowledgements
The following persons and institutions constituted the Eurofetus Study Group.
Project Leader: Salvator Levi, Brussels, Belgium; Epidemiology manager: Hélène Grandjean, Toulouse, France. Participants and centers were as follows: Belgium—R. Coulon, Ath; P. Dehavay, Charleroi; P. Defoort, Gent; S. Levi, Bruxelles; J.P. Schaaps, Liège. France—M. Delcroix, Lommes; P. Grosieux, Angers; G. Magnin, Poitiers; F. Puech, Lille, M-F. Sarramon, Toulouse. Italy—M. Campogrande, Cuneo; G.C. Dolfin, Torino; D.
References (12)
- et al.
Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy
Lancet
(1990) - et al.
The impact of routine obstetric ultrasonographic screening in a low risk population
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1996) - et al.
Predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasonic targeted imaging for fetal anomalies in gravid women at high risk for birth defects
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1985) - et al.
A randomized trial of routine prenatal ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol
(1990) - et al.
Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population
BMJ
(1991) - et al.
Routine prenatal ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities: 22 years’ experience
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
(1995)
Cited by (434)
Postnatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies despite active systematic prenatal screening policies: a population-based registry study
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFMHow can we measure the renal pelvic anteroposterior diameter in postnatal isolated hydronephrosis?
2023, Journal of Pediatric UrologyMaternal Diabetes
2023, Avery's Diseases of the NewbornFetal Therapy for Renal Anhydramnios
2022, Clinics in PerinatologyUniversal first-trimester cytomegalovirus screening and valaciclovir prophylaxis in pregnant persons: a cost-effectiveness analysis
2022, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM
- ☆
From the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicalea and the Hopital Universitaire Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles.b A complete listing of the Eurofetus Study Group and the participating institutions appears at the end of the article.
- ☆☆
The Eurofetus Study has received support from the European Union.
- ★
Reprint requests: Hélène Grandjean, MD, INSERM U518, Hôpital La Grave, 31052 Toulouse Cedex, France.
- ★★
0002-9378/99 $8.00 + 06/1/98331