|
|
|
| Ultrasound soft markers of prenatal diagnosis and maternal serological detection in#br#
screening fetal chromosomal abnormalities |
| Department of Ultrasonography, Henan University-Affiliated Huaihe Hospital, Kaifeng Henan 475000, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To explore the significanc of ultrasound soft markers(USM) in the first and second trimester combined with maternal serological detection of alpha-fetoprotein(AFP) and β-human chorionic gonadotropin(free-β-HCG) during the second trimester of pregnancy in screening fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Methods: A total of 2 502 pregnant female outpatients and inpatients from December 2010 to December 2014 were enrolled. The USM was detected during the 11th~28th gestational week by ultrasound, and multiple ultrasound soft markers(≥2) were taken as high risk. The levels of maternal serum AFP and free-β-HCG were detected during the 15th~21st gestational week. The risk of Down’s syndrome(DS) was assessed by the software named analysis system of DS prenatal screening, and the risk rate ≥1/270 was taken as high risk. Pregnant women of multiple ultrasound soft markers(≥2) and/or serological test in the high-risk level received genetic consultations, and the invasive amniocentesis and chromosomal examination were performed with consent. The screening results of multiple ultrasound soft markers or serological detection were compared with combined detection. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in detection results between USM screening and serological test. There was statistically significant difference in detection results between USM screening/serological test and combined screening. The specificity and the false negative rate were increased by combined detection. Conclusion: USM screening and serological test can't replace each other. Combined detection can enhance the exclusive ability of negative patients, and improve the reliability of prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]石晓梅，方群，陈宝江，等． 超声软指标在筛查21-三体综合征中的应用[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2013，48（2）：81．
[2]李红玉，刘穆军，王卫红． 产前血清标记物筛查对胎儿染色体病检出的临床价值[J]. 中国妇幼保健，2006，21（13）：1817．
[3]赵媛，王芳，肖君． 德普2000免疫化学发光分析仪在唐氏综合征筛查中的应用[J]． 临床误诊误治，2010，23（4）：351-353．
[4]付杰，杨慧霞，范正红，等． 唐氏综合征产前血清学筛查临界值的分析[J]． 中国全科医学，2010，13（20）：2216-2218．
[5]黎燕，林琳华，任景慧，等. 早中孕期胎儿超声软指标与染色体异常的相关性研究[J]. 中国妇幼保健，2014，29（5）：776．
[6]郑桂荣，李守柔. 脐带因素致胎儿宫内窘迫的监测[J]. 实用妇产科杂志，2000，16（5）：229-230．
[7]Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Dicke JM, et al． Revisiting the risk for aneuploidy in fetuses with isolated pyelectasis[J]． Prenat Diagn, 2011, 31(6): 566－570．
[8]严英榴，杨秀雄，沈理. 产前超声诊断学[M]. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2005：399-401．
[9]王艳，胡平，许争峰． 血浆、血清游离核苷酸与产前诊断[J]. 现代妇产科进展，2011，20（3）：236-238．
[10]宋桂宁，梁梅英，魏艳秋，等． 胎儿颈项透明层增厚与染色体异常的关系[J]． 中国妇产科临床杂志，2011，12（4）：265-267．
[11]Dhaifalah I， Dusek L， Santavy J． Implementation of One－Stop－ Clinic for Risk Assessment of chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester, evaluating the effectiveness and making it part of our daily practice[J]. Ceska Gynekol, 2011, 76(4): 292－306．
[12]Mazzoni GT Jr, Cabral AC, de Lima Faria MM, et al． Ultrasound evaluation of the fetal nasal bone: what is the most appropriate first-trimester cut-off point for aneuploidy screening?[J]． Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2012, 285(5): 1263-1270．
[13]Geipei A, Gembruch U． Screening performance of first trimester nuchal translucency, ductus venosus blood flow and tricuspid regurgitation for cardiac defects[J]． Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol, 2012, 216(4): 157-161．
[14]张璘，任梅宏，张晓红，等． 胎儿染色体异常与先天畸形类型关系的研究[J]. 实用妇产科杂志，2013，29（2）：106.
[15]宋双，李辉． 胎儿超声软指标在临床应用中的正确解读[J]． 中国实用妇科与产科杂志，2013，29（8）：628-629．
[16]戚红，王燕，卢新，等． 孕中期唐氏综合征血清学不同筛查方案的前瞻性对照研究及卫生经济学分析[J]. 生殖医学杂志，2010，19（3）：240．
[17]王强，刘筱娴． 国内外产前诊断唐氏综合征筛查方法新进展[J]. 国外医学社会医学分册，2005，22（2）：73．
[18]冯光，张莉，孙文芝，等． 唐氏综合征产前筛查及诊断对于其它染色体异常检出的意义[J]． 中国优生与遗传杂志，2010，18（4）：73－74．
[19]许烨烨，王威，蒋馥蔓，等． 无创性产前基因检测胎儿Turner综合征1例并文献复习[J]． 中国产前诊断杂志：电子版，2012，4（2）：42-45． |
|
|
|
2016, Vol. 27 
