EP01.35: A national audit on the quality of ultrasound practices relating to the fetal heart assessment in a screening perspective in France

E. Quarello,C. Dupont,G. Penaranda,I. Voznyuk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28049

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 116-117, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

EP01.41: Performance of an AI software in automatic detection of quality criteria and characteristics on fetal ultrasound images

J. Stirnemann,V. Debavelaere,G. Corda,N. Matevski,F. Loge,C. Amabile,C. Snell,M. Marquez,K.R. Faulk,V.C. Romero,M. Spiliopoulos,L. Ghulmiyyah,N. Fries,E. Spaggiari,Y. Ville

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28055

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 118-119, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP09.13: Congenital heart diseases unrecognised in the prenatal period: is the quality of obstetrical ultrasound related to the type of heart disease?

C. Velly,E. Lesieur,F. Bretelle,C. Ovaert,E. Quarello

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28394

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 200-200, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
OC07.08: Increase in completeness rate of fetal ultrasound exam using a visual checklist

A. Nicolas‐Boluda,J. Jeffery,A. Shokrzadeh‐Bonnet,A. Alzaghloul,V. Debavelaere,J. Signeux,C. Morisset,C. Amabile,N. Fries,F. Isnard‐Bogillot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27769

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 20-20, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.58: Which maternal and pregnancy characteristics affect obstetric ultrasound quality?

I. Simeonova‐Brachot,R. Oudghiri Idrissi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28072

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 124-124, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.12: AI demonstrates high detection in first trimester screening for spina bifida

R. Besson,N. Fries,C. Morisset,V. Debavelaere,E. Spaggiari,Y. Oyelese,R. Chaoui,J. Stirnemann,Y. Ville

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28027

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 110-110, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.55: Development of a tele‐ultrasound program for primary care centres

F.A. Guerra,S. Vogt,T. García‐Huidobro,F. Espinosa,M. Rubilar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28069

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 123-123, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
Quantitative Approach to Quality Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Examinations: Fetal Biometry

C Andrew Combs,Sushma Amara,Carolyn Kline,Olaide Ashimi Balogun,Zachary S Bowman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164860

2024-08-17

Abstract:Background/Objectives: To evaluate the quality of an ultrasound practice, both large-scale and focused audits are recommended by professional organizations, but such audits can be time-consuming, inefficient, and expensive. Our objective was to develop a time-efficient, quantitative, objective, large-scale method to evaluate fetal biometry measurements for an entire practice, combined with a process for focused image review for personnel whose measurements are outliers. Methods: Ultrasound exam data for a full year are exported from commercial ultrasound reporting software to a statistical package. Fetal biometry measurements are converted to z-scores to standardize across gestational ages. For a large-scale audit, sonographer mean z-scores are compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Scheffe multiple comparisons test. A focused image review is performed on a random sample of exams for sonographers whose mean z-scores differ significantly from the practice mean. A similar large-scale audit is performed, comparing physician mean z-scores. Results: Using fetal abdominal circumference measurements as an example, significant differences between sonographer mean z-scores are readily identified by the ANOVA and Scheffe test. A method is described for the blinded image audit of sonographers with outlier mean z-scores. Examples are also given for the identification and interpretation of several types of systematic errors that are unlikely to be detectable by image review, including z-scores with large or small standard deviations and physicians with outlier mean z-scores. Conclusions: The large-scale quantitative analysis provides an overview of the biometry measurements of all the sonographers and physicians in a practice, so that image audits can be focused on those whose measurements are outliers. The analysis takes little time to perform after initial development and avoids the time, complexity, and expense of auditing providers whose measurements fall within the expected range. We encourage commercial software developers to include tools in their ultrasound reporting software to facilitate such quantitative reviews.
EP01.19: Performance of an AI software in automatic detection of fetal ultrasound planes

J. Stirnemann,V. Debavelaere,G. Corda,N. Matevski,F. Loge,C. Amabile,L. Armstrong,K. Trychon,N. Logan,D. Bello,K. Sanchez,E. Spaggiari,Y. Ville

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28034

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 112-112, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.57: Enhancing ultrasound image quality for fetal kidney assessment: a prospective study on influential factors

C. Haberl,T. Vu,P. Palmrich,E. Krampl‐Bettelheim,O. Scherzer,J. Binder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28071

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 123-124, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.03: Mobile‐based self‐operated ultrasound for fetal assessment in patients at or past the estimated date of delivery

S.S. Njonou Noujiep,W. Henrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28018

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 107-107, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.21: Performance evaluation study of an artificial intelligence‐based support system for fetal cardiac ultrasound screening

R. Komatsu,M. Komatsu,N. Harada,R. Matsuoka,A. Sakai,N. Teraya,R. Aoyama,K. Takeda,K. Takasawa,H. Katayama,T. Shibata,K. Iwamoto,A. Sekizawa,R. Hamamoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28036

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 113-113, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
OP04.04: Efficacy evaluation of graded ultrasound screening for severe congenital heart disease in early pregnancy

Z. Yang,L. Zhou,L. Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27901

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 68-68, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.53: Assessment of sonographic fetal cardiac evaluation capabilities of perinatology subspeciality trainees: a mixed‐methods needs analysis

M. Sezik,M. Alimoglu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28067

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 122-122, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP07.59: Ultrasound detection of first trimester fetal structural abnormalities

N. Karmous,A. Ayachi,M. Mourali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28307

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 179-179, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP09.51: Feasibility of fetal cardiac MRI in the prenatal evaluation of congenital heart defects in comparison to ultrasound

G. Biechele,B. Stos,D. Laux,S. Stoecklein,D. Grevent,L.J. Salomon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28432

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 210-210, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP06.23: Ultrasound in diagnosing major congenital structural anomalies throughout pregnancy

F. Dita,M. Dinu,A. Stancioi‐Cismaru,A. Popa,R. Robu,A. Stoica,R.M. Aron,E.D. Luciu,M. Gheonea,S. Tudorache

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28195

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 153-153, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP01.61: Impact of physical models of fetal heart on prenatal care

P. Ramalho,C. Calil,L. Novaes,M. Chagas,M.M. Leite,C. Verona,M. Giffoni,J. Lopes,H. Werner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28075

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 125-125, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
EP19.12: A national survey on current practice of ultrasound in the management of postpartum hemorrhage

I. Mappa,B. Masturzo,T. Ghi,G. Rizzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28795

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 298-298, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics
[Routine application of results of a randomised trial: performance of ultrasound in daily routine practice for screening fetal macrosomia]

Charlotte Cabaud,Juliette François,Pierre Capitanio,Claire Thuillier,Paul Berveiller,Patrick Rozenberg,Thibaud Quibel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2024.09.005

2024-09-26

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the performance of ultrasound at 36 weeks of gestation for screening fetal macrosomia according to the criteria of the randomized "DAME" trial. Method: Retrospective observational study over 2 years in a type 3 maternity hospital. The primary outcome was birth weight above the 97th percentile on Audipog birth weight curves. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of ultrasound at 36 SA for predicting macrosomia were calculated. For each patient, the absolute value of the difference between actual and estimated weight [EPF difference=(Birth weight - Estimated weight)/Birth weight] was calculated. Among undetected macrosomic newborns (≥97th Audipog percentile), risk factors associated with misdiagnosis were investigated (false negatives versus true positives). Results: Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at 36 SA to detect fetal macrosomia had a sensitivity of 43.7% and a specificity of 82.1%. With a positive predictive value for ultrasound of 36,9% and a negative predictive value of 85.8%. The mean absolute value of the difference between estimated and actual birth weight was 287g (95% CI [115-409]), with a mean relative difference of 6.8% (95% CI [3.0-11.3]). A relative difference of less than 10% between the estimated weight and the birth weight was found in 68.5% of the patients. Among macrosomic newborns (≥97th percentile), a third-trimester estimated fetal weight at or above the 90th percentile, along with a history of fetal macrosomia in a previous pregnancy, reduced the risk of false negatives in the screening ultrasound at 36 weeks of gestation. Conclusion: Ultrasound performed at 36 weeks' gestation in a population targeted for suspected fetal macrosomia in routine practice has moderate sensitivity and positive predictive value. It would be timely for teams also applying this protocol to share their results, in order to verify whether or not our findings can be generalized to a larger scale.
OP02.05: AI‐enhanced detection of congenital heart disease suspicion in second trimester ultrasounds by OBGYN and MFM

J. Lam‐Rachlin,R. Punn,M. Lachaud,N. David,S. Garmel,R. Bessis,M. Heiligenstein,K.R. Sylvester‐Armstrong,J.P. Kennedy,A. Rebarber,N. Fox,D. Chelli,P. Boukobza,P. Uzan,G. Vaksmann,L. Cohen,M. Levy,B. Stos,M. De Boisredon,V. Thorey,E. Askinazi,C. Gardella,A. Arunamata

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27887

2024-09-11

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Ultrasound in Obstetrics &Gynecology, Volume 64, Issue S1, Page 63-63, September 2024.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics

EP01.35: A national audit on the quality of ultrasound practices relating to the fetal heart assessment in a screening perspective in France

EP01.41: Performance of an AI software in automatic detection of quality criteria and characteristics on fetal ultrasound images

EP09.13: Congenital heart diseases unrecognised in the prenatal period: is the quality of obstetrical ultrasound related to the type of heart disease?

OC07.08: Increase in completeness rate of fetal ultrasound exam using a visual checklist

EP01.58: Which maternal and pregnancy characteristics affect obstetric ultrasound quality?

EP01.12: AI demonstrates high detection in first trimester screening for spina bifida

EP01.55: Development of a tele‐ultrasound program for primary care centres

Quantitative Approach to Quality Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Examinations: Fetal Biometry

EP01.19: Performance of an AI software in automatic detection of fetal ultrasound planes

EP01.57: Enhancing ultrasound image quality for fetal kidney assessment: a prospective study on influential factors

EP01.03: Mobile‐based self‐operated ultrasound for fetal assessment in patients at or past the estimated date of delivery

EP01.21: Performance evaluation study of an artificial intelligence‐based support system for fetal cardiac ultrasound screening

OP04.04: Efficacy evaluation of graded ultrasound screening for severe congenital heart disease in early pregnancy

EP01.53: Assessment of sonographic fetal cardiac evaluation capabilities of perinatology subspeciality trainees: a mixed‐methods needs analysis

EP07.59: Ultrasound detection of first trimester fetal structural abnormalities

EP09.51: Feasibility of fetal cardiac MRI in the prenatal evaluation of congenital heart defects in comparison to ultrasound

EP06.23: Ultrasound in diagnosing major congenital structural anomalies throughout pregnancy

EP01.61: Impact of physical models of fetal heart on prenatal care

EP19.12: A national survey on current practice of ultrasound in the management of postpartum hemorrhage

[Routine application of results of a randomised trial: performance of ultrasound in daily routine practice for screening fetal macrosomia]

OP02.05: AI‐enhanced detection of congenital heart disease suspicion in second trimester ultrasounds by OBGYN and MFM