Figures
Abstract
Objective
The rapid progress in fetal echocardiography has lead to early detection of congenital heart diseases. Increasing evidences have shown that prenatal diagnosis could be life saving in certain cases. However, there is no agreement on which protocol is most adaptive diagnostic one. Thus, we use meta-analysis to conduct a pooled performance test on 5 diagnostic protocols.
Methods
We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO clinical trails registry center to identify relevant studies up to August, 2012. We performed meta-analysis in a fixed/random-effect model using Meta-disc 1.4. We used STATA 11.0 to estimate the publication bias and SPSS 17.0 to evaluate variance.
Results
We use results from 81 studies in 63 articles to analyze the pooled accuracy. The overall performance of pooled sensitivities of spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC), extend cardiac echography examination (ECEE) and 4 chambers view + outflow tract view + 3 vessels and trachea view (4 CV+OTV+3 VTV) were around 0.90, which was significant higher than that of 4 chambers view + outflow tract view or 3 vessels and trachea view (4 CV+OTV/3 VTV) and 4 chambers view (4 CV). Unfortunately the pooled specificity of STIC was 0.92, which was significant lower than that of other 4 protocols which reached at 1.00. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves value of STIC, ECEE, 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV, 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV and 4 CV were 0.9700, 0.9971, 0.9983, 0.9929 and 0.9928 respectively.
Conclusion
These results suggest a great diagnostic potential for fetal echocardiography detection as a reliable method of fetal congenital heart disease. But at least 3 sections view (4 CV, OTV and 3 VTV) should be included in scan protocol, while the STIC can be used to provide more information for local details of defects, and can not be used to make a definite diagnosis alone with its low specificity.
Citation: Li Y, Hua Y, Fang J, Wang C, Qiao L, Wan C, et al. (2013) Performance of Different Scan Protocols of Fetal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Fetal Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484
Editor: Kelvin Kian Loong Wong, University of Adelaide, Australia
Received: March 29, 2013; Accepted: April 26, 2013; Published: June 4, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Li et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81070136 and 81270226) and the Program for Yangtze River Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (No. IRT0935). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth abnormality, with a incidence of 6–8‰ in all live births [1]. 20% of those who survive have major CHD. Many of them need surgical procedure in early life stage to retain their life [2]. In certain cases of fetal cardiac and other structural anomalies, prenatal diagnosis may be helpful or even life saving [3]–[5], with prenatal diagnosis providing optimal perinatal and perioperative management [6]. Fortunately, constant advance in ultrasound imaging has improved the imaging quality and the accuracy of earlier detection [7], [8]. At first, 4 chambers view (4 CV) was used to scan fetal heart defects, then outflow tract view (OTV) and 3 vessels trachea view (3 VTV) were added to increase accuracy of fetal echocardiography. Nowadays, extend cardiac echography examination (ECEE) was carried out as a specific protocol to identify some minimal defects in utero and provide more detail information on suspicious fetal heart. Since spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC), was first introduced for fetal echocardiography in 2003 [9]. Many studies have described its application to scanning normal and anomalous fetal hearts [10], [11]. Also cardiovascular diseases can be diagnosed by assessing abnormal flow behavior in the heart using noninvasive assessment based on magnetic resonance. And with the computer-aided flow analysis, high quailty image can be catched to make a reliable diagnosis during fetal life [12]–[15]. Compared to ultrasound diagnostic protocols, the magnetic resonance examination must be performed in hospital and spend a longer time as well as its higher cost. So the echocaridiography is still the most popular scan method and perfomed in many kinds of examination during pregnancy.
So far, a lot of studies have demonstrated the short-term and long-term prognostic benefit resulting from the prenatal diagnosis of CHD. Nowadays, 4 CV, 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV, 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV, ECEE and STIC were the most popular scan protocols for fetal CHD diagnosis during last several decades [8], [16], [17]. However, Moreover, no general agreement has been recognized on how to choose from the 5 protocols for fetal CHD diagnosis, even though some comparison studies have been done on the accuracy among different scan protocols. Thus, in the meta-analysis, we estimated the accuracy of fetal diagnosis and compared sensitivities and specificities among 5 diagnostic protocols.
Materials and Methods
Study Protocol
This analysis was conducted in accordance with a predetermined protocol following the recommendations of Deeks et al. [18]. And there is no existed protocol. The data collection and reporting were in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (Table S1).
Search Strategy
Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and World Health Organization clinical trails registry center were searched using a high sensitive and high specific search strategy,which was “diagnosis AND (heart defects, congenital [MeSH Terms] OR congenital heart disease) AND (ultrasonography OR sonography OR echocardiography OR ultrasound) AND (prenatal OR antenatal OR intrauterine OR in utero)”. Search was updated to August 2012. The language restriction was used only for English published papers.
Study Selection
Citations initially selected by systematic search were first retrieved as title and/or abstract and preliminarily screened. Potentially relevant reports were then retrieved as complete manuscripts and assessed for compliance to inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The inclusion criteria were as followings: 1) the patients were taken fetal echocardiography or ultrasound examination in utero; 2) diagnostic test; 3) the prenatal diagnosis confirmed by neonatal echocardiography or autopsy or surgery or cardiac catheterization; 4) contained the date of true positive, false positive, false negative and true negative; or the sensitivity, specificity and essential sample size.
The exclusion criteria were as followings: 1) the total sample size was quite small (total sample size ≤15); 2) the same cohort had been studied in other study; 3) unable to construct 2×2 table; 4) special echocardiography use for diagnosis; 5) not focused on CHD; 6) conferences articles.
Data Collection and Assessment of Study Quality
Two investigators (Yifei Li, Jie Fang) independently assessed eligibility of reports at the title and/or at abstract level, with a third reviewer (Kaiyu Zhou) determining the divergences together; studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for further analysis.
The quality of each study’s methodology was assessed using the 14-item Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) list [19]. Each question was assigned with a response of yes, no, or unclear when evaluating each of the included studies. Since the assessment of quality related strongly to the reporting of results, a well conducted study could score poorly if the methods and results were not reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, we did not report the assessment in scores but in descriptive forms only.
Publication Bias
Publication bias was tested using funnel plots and the Deek’s test by Stata statistical software (STATA) version 11.0. An asymmetric distribution of data points in the funnel plot and a quantified result of P, 0.10 in the Deek’s test indicated the presence of potential publication bias [20].
Heterogeneity
The Χ2 test was used to examine heterogeneity in pooling sensitivity and specificity. The Cochran Q test was used to examine heterogeneity in pooling diagnostic odds ratio. Heterogeneity was considered to be statistically significant when P< 0.05 in these qualitative tests. The I2 test was also conducted in every pooling analysis to quantitatively estimate the proportion of total variation across studies that was attributable to heterogeneity rather than chance. The I2 value would range from 0 to 100%, with a value over 50% indicating significant heterogeneity. The existence of a threshold effect would manifest as a curvilinear shape in the summary receiver operating characteristic curves.
Sensitivity Analysis
To determine whether any single study was incurring undue weight in the analysis, one set of study data were systematically removed, and the pooled results for the remaining studies were rechecked whether the results had a significant change. The sensitivity analysis was conducted for every study.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using Meta-Disc Version 1.4 [21] and STATA version 11.0. The test performance of different types of echocardiography detection for the fetal CHDs was measured by the following indicators: sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. Sensitivity was represented by the proportion of fetus with heart malformation that was correctly identified by the positive results of different types of echocardiography. Specificity was represented by the non-heart malformation cases that were correctly identified by the negative results of different types of echocardiography. Moreover, it was more reliable to define the summary of test performance using diagnostic odds ratio than simply pooling sensitivity and specificity together across the studies. Diagnostic odds ratio was an independent indicator ranging from 0 to infinity, which represented how much greater the odds of having fetal congenital heart disease were for patient with a positive detecting result than for patient with a negative ultrasound result. The higher the diagnostic odds ratio, the better the discriminatory ability of the test was [22]. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted based on the combination of sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the curve value was then calculated as a global measurement of test performance. The closer the the area under the curve value was to 1, the better the test performance [23]. And the Χ2 test of evaluating the sensitivities and specificities among different types of echocardiography were performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 17.0. For all tests, a P value <0.05 was considered with significant difference. Because of potential heterogeneity between studies, effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models of DerSimonian and Laird in Meta Disc [24]. Empty cells were handled using a 0.5 continuity correction.
Results
Study Evaluation
A total of 519 citations were retrieved by the method aforementioned. After reading titles and abstracts, 428 citations were excluded according to the selection criteria, and identified the initially 91 articles. Among them, 39 articles were excluded by reading the completed articles [9], [25]–[62], in which 17 articles were unable to construct 2×2 table, 13 articles were not about diagnostic tests, 4 articles focused special echocardiography use for diagnosis, 2 articles only provided technique successful rate, 1 article didn’t focus on CHDs, 1 article was a repeated sample and 1 article was a review. Then, 11 articles were added through manual retrospective research after reading related publications [53], [57], [61], [63]–[70]. At last 63 articles with 81 diagnostic test studies for fetal CHD diagnosis were enrolled into this meta-analysis [11], [17], [63]–[123] (Figure 1). Among these 81 researches, 8 studies were about STIC, 24 studies were about ECEE, 9 studies were about 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV, 13 studies were about 4 CV+OTV or 4 CV+3 VTV and 24 studies were about 4 CV. Moreover, 16 articles contained 2 studies for such accuracy evaluation [71], [74], [76]–[79], [83], [87]–[89], [100], [101], [106], [113], [116], [119], and 1 article contained 3 studies of such accuracy evaluation [68]. The basic characteristics of included studies were showed in Table 1.
Study Quality
The QUADAS list of questions was used to review the test quality of the included studies. Most of the studies satisfied a majority of the items on the QUADAS list. The most common missing items in the studies included in this analysis were reports of uninterruptible test results and withdrawn cases. In addition, almost all of the studies failed to mention the blinded interpretations between the fetal ultrasound results and the neonatal or autopsy evaluation (Table S2).
Publication Bias
Funnel plots were used to evaluate the publication bias of included studies. Each dot represents a study and the distance between each dot and the vertical line suggests bias in each study. The absence of any asymmetric distribution suggested there was no publication bias. While the asymmetric distribution existed, that indicated that publication bias was existed. The Deek’s test revealed the possibility of significant publication bias among the included reports of ECEE (p = 0.01, 95% CI, −54.69 to −7.64) and 4 CV (p = 0.00, 95% CI, −52.92 to −17.20) evaluation pooled results. The funnel plot in Figure S2 and S5 also presented a certain degree of asymmetry, indicating the potential for publication bias among the studies included in this analysis. Otherwise, there were no significant publication bias among the included reports of STIC (p = 0.28, 95% CI, −13.03 to 37.69), 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV (p = 0.21, 95% CI, −93.30 to 24.50) and 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV (p = 0.15, 95% CI, −70.08 to 11.95) evaluation pooled results. The funnel plot in Figure S1, Figure S3 and Figure S4 also presented a certain degree of symmetry, indicating there was no potential for publication bias among the studies included in this analysis.
Overall Diagnostic Performance of Fetal Echocardiography
STIC.
Overall diagnostic performance of STIC (Figure 2 and 3) shows the capability of STIC in detecting fetal CHD. The summary sensitivity was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.93), with individual sensitivities ranging from 0.70 to 1.00. The summary specificity was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94), with individual specificities ranging from 0.46 to 0.99. Both pooled estimations showed significant heterogeneity (Sensitivity: P = 0.0100, X2 = 18.47, I2 = 62.1%; specificity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 61.75, I2 = 88.7%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 131.65 (95% CI, 44.62 to 388.50), with individual diagnostic odds ratio s ranging from 5.14 to 1267.00. The results of diagnostic odds ratio showed no consistency across the included reports, with noticeable heterogeneity (P = 0.0005, Cochran-Q = 26.14, I2 = 73.2%). The point size in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve represented the proportional study weight. Most data gathered near the top left corner where sensitivity and specificity were both the highest. The the area under the curve value was 0.9700±0.0126. The absence of curvilinear shape in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect.
(A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Error bars represent 95% CIs. STIC, spatiotemporal image correlation; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
(A) Overall diagnostic odds ratio. (B) The summary receiver operating characteristic curves for all data sets. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio is shown as a solid diamond. Each square in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve represents one study. Sample size is indicated by the size of the square. STIC, spatiotemporal image correlation; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; AUC, area under curve.
ECEE.
Overall Diagnostic Performance of ECEE shows the capability of ECEE in detecting fetal CHD. The summary sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.90), with individual sensitivities ranging from 0.43 to 1.00. The summary specificity was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00), with individual specificities ranging from 0.96 to 1.00. Both pooled estimations showed significant heterogeneity (Sensitivity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 168.03, I2 = 86.3%; specificity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 144.48, I2 = 84.1%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 2538.16 (95% CI, 1144.50 to 5628.88), with individual diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 42.50 to 374862.84. The results of diagnostic odds ratio showed no consistency across the included reports, with noticeable heterogeneity (P = 0.0000, Cochran-Q = 77.38, I2 = 70.3%). The point size in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve represented the proportional study weight. Most data gathered near the top left corner where sensitivity and specificity were both the highest. The area under the curve value was 0.9971±0.0009. The absence of curvilinear shape in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect.
4 CV+OTV+3 VTV.
Overall Diagnostic Performance of 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV (Figure 4) shows the capability of 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV in detecting fetal CHD. The summary sensitivity was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93), with individual sensitivities ranging from 0.68 to 1.00. The summary specificity was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00), with individual specificities ranging from 0.99 to 1.00. Both pooled estimations showed significant heterogeneity (Sensitivity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 51.46, I2 = 84.5%; specificity: P = 0.0082, X2 = 20.63, I2 = 61.2%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 5224.27 (95% CI, 2071.12 to 13177.88), with individual diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 809.72 to 202125.00. The results of diagnostic odds ratio showed consistency across the included reports, without noticeable heterogeneity (P = 0.1188, Cochran-Q = 12.80, I2 = 37.5%). The point size in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve represented the proportional study weight. Most data gathered near the top left corner where sensitivity and specificity were both the highest. The area under the curve value was 0.9983±0.0008. The absence of curvilinear shape in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect.
CV+OTV+3 VTV detection for the diagnosis of fetal CHDs. (A) Pooled sensitivity. (B) Pooled specificity. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects models. The point estimates from each study are shown as solid squares. The pooled estimates are shown as a solid diamond. Error bars represent 95% CIs. 4 CV, 4 chamber view; OTV, outflow tract view; VTV, three-vessel trachea view; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
4 CV+OTV/3 VTV.
Overall Diagnostic Performance of 4 CV+OTV or 4 CV+3 VTV shows the capability of 4 CV+OTV or 4 CV+3 VTV in detecting fetal CHD. The summary sensitivity was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.69), with individual sensitivities ranging from 0.14 to 0.93. The summary specificity was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00), with individual specificities ranging from 0.98 to 1.00. Both pooled estimations showed significant heterogeneity (Sensitivity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 68.44, I2 = 82.5%; specificity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 144.48, I2 = 91.7%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 817.72 (95% CI, 310.54 to 2153.26), with individual diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 15.42 to 43402.38. The results of diagnostic odds ratio showed no consistency across the included reports, with noticeable heterogeneity (P = 0.0000, Cochran-Q = 76.17, I2 = 84.2%). The point size in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve represented the proportional study weight. Most data gathered near the left border where sensitivity diffused with a large range and specificity was the highest. The area under the curve value was 0.9929±0.0029. The absence of curvilinear shape in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect.
4 CV.
Overall Diagnostic Performance of 4 CV shows the capability of 4 CV in detecting fetal CHD. The summary sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55), with individual sensitivities ranging from 0.15 to 1.00. The summary specificity was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00), with individual specificities ranging from 0.94 to 1.00. Both pooled estimations showed significant heterogeneity (Sensitivity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 589.26, I2 = 96.1%; specificity: P = 0.0000, X2 = 252.76, I2 = 90.9%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 804.37 (95% CI, 385.59 to 1677.95), with individual diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 50.19 to 43435.59. The results of diagnostic odds ratio showed no consistency across the included reports, with noticeable heterogeneity (P = 0.0000, Cochran-Q = 105.52, I2 = 78.2%). The point size in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve represented the proportional study weight. Most data gathered near the left border where sensitivity diffused with a large range and specificity was the highest. The area under the curve value was 0.9928±0.0022. The absence of curvilinear shape in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve suggested no potential presence of a threshold effect.
Sensitivity Analysis
We systematically removed one data set at a time and recalculated the diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve values for the remaining studies. These results indicated that no single data set carried enough weight to significantly influence the pooled test performance reported for the ability of each type of fetal echocardiography to identify cases of fetal CHD. Finally sensitivity analysis had been done by a larger sample size subgroup analysis in the comparison which enrolled more than 5 studies, and every analysis confirmed in both direction and magnitude of statistical significance the findings of the overall analysis.
Analysis of Variance
The comparison of sensitivity and specificity among different types of echocardiography had been done by X2 test. Among 5 groups, the sensitivities and specificities were not all same for pooled results. Moreover, the sensitivities of STIC, ECEE and 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV showed no significant difference by comparison. However, the results of 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV and 4 CV pooled estimations showed significant differences between each group, with a significant lower sensitivity, especially for the 4 CV. The specificity of STIC pooled estimations showed significant differences between each group by comparison, with a significant lower specificity. However, the results of ECEE, 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV, 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV and 4 CV pooled estimations showed significant differences between each group, with almost the same specificities (Table 2).
Discussion
This meta-analysis was restricted to the characteristics and accuracy of different protocols of fetal echocardiography scanning. Since the introduction of fetal echocardiography from 1980s, many studies have focused on its effectiveness of detecting fetal CHDs, and provided convincing evidence about its reliability and high scan quality [44], [50], [57], [124]. Antenatal detection of CHDs remains one of the most challenging issues of prenatal diagnosis. Fetal cardiac abnormalities can be scanned and diagnosed as early as 11 weeks’ gestation by experienced groups [125], although the widely recommended age for performing routine fetal echocardiography is 22–24 weeks It is also reasonable to put the scanning time forward to 12–20 gestation weeks for high-risk pregnancies [126], [127]. Considering the superiority of prenatal diagnosis in helping neonatal administration and even life saving, fetal echocardiography has been listed in routine obstetrics ultrasound to provide more fetal information for parents [128], [129]. The doctors can be informed clearly about the fetal heart function and the hemodynamics of fetal circulation. When the fetus meets restricted and harmful hemodynamics which could lead to abortion, her or his mother could receive immediately cesarean to terminate the continuous depravation of fetal condition [6], [130]–[132]. Regarding this point, it is important to make a definite and scientific diagnosis.
Currently, most of cardiac malformations can be found out with the help of fetal echocardiography. Although amount of studies demonstrated the sensitivities and specificities of STIC, ECEE, 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV, 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV and 4 CV scan protocols, but the results showed dissemination with large ranges. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis focused on the accuracy of prenatal diagnosis of CHD using 5 different types of echocardiography and make comparison among the 5 protocols. Randall et al. had drawn a systematic review on routine fetal detection of CHD among unselected and low risk populations [133] and Rasiah et al focused on the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound examination for detecting major CHD [134]. Even these 2 meta-analyses about the accuracy of fetal echocardiography have been done, but they only took specialized indications for enrolled articles and provided some strict evidence about fetal CHD detection. So this meta-analysis concentrated on the common used 5 scan protocols, and demonstrated some instruction for fetal ultrasound scan selection.
In this meta-analysis, we included 63 relevant studies with a total of 81 studies. Among the pooled diagnostic odds ratios, the STIC had the lowest diagnostic odds ratio of 131.65 (95% CI, 44.62 to 388.50). The areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curves for all data sets were higher than 0.99 which demonstrated a quite high diagnostic accuracy. And the area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic of STIC was 0.9700±0.0126. These results represented a good diagnostic efficacy for every method in identifying fetal CHD, regardless of the sample origin and methodology variation. STIC technology has been incorporated by some groups into the management of fetuses at high risk of CHDs [9]. The use of STIC in the first trimester has been reported only in some very recent series. STIC technology offers other advantages such as access to virtual planes not available for direct visualization in 2D ultrasound and multiplanar reconstruction to view three orthogonal planes simultaneously [10], [31], [86], [135]. The navigation dot in multiplanar reconstruction provides positioning and orientation assistance to the operator. There are functional cardiology analyses that can only be performed with STIC technology. Vinals et al. demonstrated that volume datasets from a first-trimester fetal heart can be acquired in a high proportion of cases by properly trained non-expert operators and sent to an expert in ECEE for offline evaluation via telemedicine [136]. Although non-experts in echocardiography could acquire correct volumes in all patients in Bennasar et al. series [78]. Though STIC technology has above advantages, it can not take all the place of the 2D ultrasound scan for its poorer specificity. As previously reported, there are some areas of difficulty in diagnosis of CHD, especially at 11 to 14 weeks. This difficulty applies particularly to minor defects, such as ventricular septal defects [83], [121], and to several forms of structural heart disease, which evolve in uterine and become apparent with the advancing of gestation.
To investigate potential variables of sensitivities and specificities among 5 scan protocols, a Χ2 analysis was conducted to provide clues for methodological indications. It found that the sensitivities had been stabled at a level about 0.90, which suggested that completed 3 sections view could provide a satisfied sensitivity. Even though more sections scan could provide more information about fetal heart, but to routine fetal heart examination for low risk fetuses, the sections viewed after finishing 4 CV, OTV and 3 VTV with high quality images can get a stable accurate diagnosis level, and may not shrink the accuracy. However, once the fetus had been identified CHD, the ECEE and STIC maybe helpful in supplying more information, especially for complex CHDs. But the new technology of STIC could not get a top performance of specificity which traditional 2D ultrasound showed almost no false positive. At the same time, these results suggested the STIC technique can not be a final diagnostic method for fetal CHD alone. 2D ultrasound should be performed firstly and consider the STIC as an additional examination to provide local detail information of defects.
For such fetus in the early term of gestation, there are some difficulties to obtain 3 cardiac sections or complete a whole ECEE examination [125], [137]. In this circumstances, it’s not responsible to make diagnosis of whether this fetus suffering from CHD. Longer term follow-up is still needed until echocardiography can be finished with more than 3 cardiac sections, especially for the pregnant woman with high risk factors. After that, the observers can make a scientific diagnosis and get more stereoscopic images for fetal evaluation or even fetal treatment, such as fetal cardiac intervention and neonatal surgery at the very beginning of life.
The limitations of this meta-analysis are: 1) only English publications were included; 2) univariate analysis about the examination weeks, with or without high risk and the publication years had not been done for the large heterogeneity. The potential influence factors analysis might get unconvinced results for few studies respectively.
In conclusion, despite inter-study variability, the test performance of fetal CHD detected by echocardiography technology was impressive and non-consistent under circumstances of methodological changes. But each method demonstrated both acceptable sensitivity and specificity in detecting fetal heart defects. These results suggest a great diagnostic potential for fetal echocardiography detection as a reliable method of fetal CHD. At least 3 sections view (4 CV, OTV and 3 VTV) should be included in routine scan protocols, but in the specific examination of fetal heart structure, the ECEE should be done for more range of imformation and it encourages that ECEE should be performaned for every high-risk pregnant women and in tertiary medical center. So that without 3 section view completed in primary scan, diagnosis of CHD can not be reached. While the STIC technology can be used to provide more detail information for local situation of defects, especailly for such fetus who would undergo fetal cardiac intervention, STIC may be quite helpful and provide exact instructions. However, STIC can not be used to make a definite diagnosis alone with its relatively low specificity.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
Funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias of STIC. The funnel graphs plot the square root of the effective sample size (1/ESS1/2) against the diagnostic odds ratio. Each circle represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the circle distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. This funnel plot indicates no publication bias with a p value = 0.28 > 0.10. ESS, effective sample size.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484.s001
(TIF)
Figure S2.
Funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias of ECEE. The funnel graphs plot the square root of the effective sample size (1/ESS1/2) against the diagnostic odds ratio. Each circle represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the circle distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. This funnel plot indicates publication bias with a p value = 0.01 < 0.10. ESS, effective sample size.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484.s002
(TIF)
Figure S3.
Funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias of 4 CV+OTV+3 VTV. The funnel graphs plot the square root of the effective sample size (1/ESS1/2) against the diagnostic odds ratio. Each circle represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the circle distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. This funnel plot indicates no publication bias with a p value = 0.21 > 0.10. ESS, effective sample size.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484.s003
(TIF)
Figure S4.
Funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias of 4 CV+OTV/3 VTV. The funnel graphs plot the square root of the effective sample size (1/ESS1/2) against the diagnostic odds ratio. Each circle represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the circle distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. This funnel plot indicates no publication bias with a p value = 0.15 > 0.10. ESS, effective sample size.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484.s004
(TIF)
Figure S5.
Funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias of 4 CV. The funnel graphs plot the square root of the effective sample size (1/ESS1/2) against the diagnostic odds ratio. Each circle represents each study in the meta-analysis. Asymmetry of the circle distribution between regression lines indicates potential publication bias. This funnel plot indicates publication bias with a p value = 0.00 < 0.10. ESS, effective sample size.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484.s005
(TIF)
Table S2.
Quality assessment of the included articles. QUADAS, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065484.s007
(DOC)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: YFL KYZ. Performed the experiments: YFL YMH JF. Analyzed the data: YFL JF CW LNQ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JF CMW DZM. Wrote the paper: YFL KYZ.
References
- 1. Hoffman JI, Kaplan S (2002) The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 39: 1890–1900.
- 2. van der Linde D, Konings EE, Slager MA, Witsenburg M, Helbing WA, et al. (2011) Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 58: 2241–2247.
- 3. Wan AW, Jevremovic A, Selamet Tierney ES, McCrindle BW, Dunn E, et al. (2009) Comparison of impact of prenatal versus postnatal diagnosis of congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries. Am J Cardiol 104: 1276–1279.
- 4. Tworetzky W, McElhinney DB, Reddy VM, Brook MM, Hanley FL, et al. (2001) Improved surgical outcome after fetal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Circulation 103: 1269–1273.
- 5. Lagopoulos ME, Manlhiot C, McCrindle BW, Jaeggi ET, Friedberg MK, et al. (2010) Impact of prenatal diagnosis and anatomical subtype on outcome in double outlet right ventricle. Am Heart J 160: 692–700.
- 6. Yeu BK, Chalmers R, Shekleton P, Grimwade J, Menahem S (2008) Fetal cardiac diagnosis and its influence on the pregnancy and newborn–a tertiary centre experience. Fetal Diagn Ther 24: 241–245.
- 7. Parlakay AO, Karagoz T, Ozkutlu S, Ozen S, Alehan D, et al. (2011) Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of portable echocardiography in newborns. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 11: 627–632.
- 8. Prakash A, Powell AJ, Geva T (2010) Multimodality noninvasive imaging for assessment of congenital heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 3: 112–125.
- 9. Goncalves LF, Lee W, Chaiworapongsa T, Espinoza J, Schoen ML, et al. (2003) Four-dimensional ultrasonography of the fetal heart with spatiotemporal image correlation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189: 1792–1802.
- 10. Hongmei W, Ying Z, Ailu C, Wei S (2012) Novel application of four-dimensional sonography with B-flow imaging and spatiotemporal image correlation in the assessment of fetal congenital heart defects. Echocardiography 29: 614–619.
- 11. Yagel S, Cohen SM, Rosenak D, Messing B, Lipschuetz M, et al. (2011) Added value of three-/four-dimensional ultrasound in offline analysis and diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37: 432–437.
- 12. Wong KK, Kelso RM, Worthley SG, Sanders P, Mazumdar J, et al. (2009) Noninvasive cardiac flow assessment using high speed magnetic resonance fluid motion tracking. PLoS One 4: e5688.
- 13. Wong KKL, Kelso RM, Worthley SG, Sanders P, Mazumdar J, et al. (2009) Medical imaging and processing methods for cardiac flow reconstruction. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology 09: 1–20.
- 14. Wong KK, Sun Z, Tu J, Worthley SG, Mazumdar J, et al. (2012) Medical image diagnostics based on computer-aided flow analysis using magnetic resonance images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 36: 527–541.
- 15. Wong KKL, Sun Z, Tu J (2012) Medical imaging and computer-aided flow analysis of a heart with atrial septal defect. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology 12: 1250024.
- 16. Herberg U, Steinweg B, Berg C, Breuer J (2011) Echocardiography in the fetus–a systematic comparative analysis of standard cardiac views with 2D, 3D reconstructive and 3D real-time echocardiography. Ultraschall Med 32: 293–301.
- 17. Bakiler AR, Ozer EA, Kanik A, Kanit H, Aktas FN (2007) Accuracy of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease with fetal echocardiography. Fetal Diagn Ther 22: 241–244.
- 18. Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 323: 157–162.
- 19. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3: 25.
- 20. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 882–893.
- 21. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6: 31.
- 22. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM (2003) The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 56: 1129–1135.
- 23. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12: 1293–1316.
- 24. DerSimonian R, Kacker R (2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 28: 105–114.
- 25. Zabadneh N, Santagati C, Reffo E, Biffanti R, Cerutti A, et al. (2011) Usefulness of fetal three-dimensional ultrasonography for detecting of congenital heart defects and associated syndromes. Pediatr Cardiol 32: 724–736.
- 26. Divanovic A, Hor K, Cnota J, Hirsch R, Kinsel-Ziter M, et al. (2011) Prediction and perinatal management of severely restrictive atrial septum in fetuses with critical left heart obstruction: clinical experience using pulmonary venous Doppler analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141: 988–994.
- 27. Tongsong T, Tongprasert F, Srisupundit K, Luewan S (2010) The complete three-vessel view in prenatal detection of congenital heart defects. Prenat Diagn 30: 23–29.
- 28. Rizzo G, Arduini D, Capponi A (2010) Use of 4-dimensional sonography in the measurement of fetal great vessels in mediastinum to distinguish true-from false-positive coarctation of the aorta. J Ultrasound Med 29: 325–326.
- 29. Abu-Rustum RS, Daou L, Abu-Rustum SE (2010) Role of first-trimester sonography in the diagnosis of aneuploidy and structural fetal anomalies. J Ultrasound Med 29: 1445–1452.
- 30. Sklansky MS, Berman DP, Pruetz JD, Chang RK (2009) Prenatal screening for major congenital heart disease: superiority of outflow tracts over the 4-chamber view. J Ultrasound Med 28: 889–899.
- 31. Uittenbogaard LB, Haak MC, Spreeuwenberg MD, Van Vugt JM (2008) A systematic analysis of the feasibility of four-dimensional ultrasound imaging using spatiotemporal image correlation in routine fetal echocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31: 625–632.
- 32. Rizzo G, Capponi A, Vendola M, Pietrolucci ME, Arduini D (2008) Role of tomographic ultrasound imaging with spatiotemporal image correlation for identifying fetal ventricular septal defects. J Ultrasound Med 27: 1071–1075.
- 33. Wong SF, Ward C, Lee-Tannock A, Le S, Chan FY (2007) Pulmonary artery/aorta ratio in simple screening for fetal outflow tract abnormalities during the second trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30: 275–280.
- 34. Gelehrter S, Owens ST, Russell MW, van der Velde ME, Gomez-Fifer C (2007) Accuracy of the fetal echocardiogram in double-outlet right ventricle. Congenit Heart Dis 2: 32–37.
- 35. Yagel S, Benachi A, Bonnet D, Dumez Y, Hochner-Celnikier D, et al. (2006) Rendering in fetal cardiac scanning: the intracardiac septa and the coronal atrioventricular valve planes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 266–274.
- 36. Volpe P, Campobasso G, Stanziano A, De Robertis V, Di Paolo S, et al. (2006) Novel application of 4D sonography with B-flow imaging and spatio-temporal image correlation (STIC) in the assessment of the anatomy of pulmonary arteries in fetuses with pulmonary atresia and ventricular septal defect. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 40–46.
- 37. Gottliebson WM, Border WL, Franklin CM, Meyer RA, Michelfelder EC (2006) Accuracy of fetal echocardiography: a cardiac segment-specific analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 15–21.
- 38. Garne E, Loane M, Dolk H, De Vigan C, Scarano G, et al. (2005) Prenatal diagnosis of severe structural congenital malformations in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25: 6–11.
- 39. ter Heide H, Thomson JD, Wharton GA, Gibbs JL (2004) Poor sensitivity of routine fetal anomaly ultrasound screening for antenatal detection of atrioventricular septal defect. Heart 90: 916–917.
- 40. Carvalho JS (2004) Fetal heart scanning in the first trimester. Prenat Diagn 24: 1060–1067.
- 41. Wong SF, Chan FY, Cincotta RB, Lee-Tannock A, Ward C (2003) Factors influencing the prenatal detection of structural congenital heart diseases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 19–25.
- 42. Vinals F, Poblete P, Giuliano A (2003) Spatio-temporal image correlation (STIC): a new tool for the prenatal screening of congenital heart defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22: 388–394.
- 43. Huggon IC, DeFigueiredo DB, Allan LD (2003) Tricuspid regurgitation in the diagnosis of chromosomal anomalies in the fetus at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Heart 89: 1071–1073.
- 44. Carvalho JS, Mavrides E, Shinebourne EA, Campbell S, Thilaganathan B (2002) Improving the effectiveness of routine prenatal screening for major congenital heart defects. Heart 88: 387–391.
- 45. Perolo A, Prandstraller D, Ghi T, Gargiulo G, Leone O, et al. (2001) Diagnosis and management of fetal cardiac anomalies: 10 years of experience at a single institution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18: 615–618.
- 46. Duke C, Sharland GK, Jones AM, Simpson JM (2001) Echocardiographic features and outcome of truncus arteriosus diagnosed during fetal life. Am J Cardiol 88: 1379–1384.
- 47. Tometzki AJ, Suda K, Kohl T, Kovalchin JP, Silverman NH (1999) Accuracy of prenatal echocardiographic diagnosis and prognosis of fetuses with conotruncal anomalies. J Am Coll Cardiol 33: 1696–1701.
- 48. Leung MP, Tang MH, Ghosh A (1999) Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart malformations: classification based on abnormalities detected by the four-chamber view. Prenat Diagn 19: 305–313.
- 49. Klein SK, Cans C, Robert E, Jouk PS (1999) Efficacy of routine fetal ultrasound screening for congenital heart disease in Isere County, France. Prenat Diagn 19: 318–322.
- 50. Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S (1999) The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181: 446–454.
- 51.
Bull C (1999) Current and potential impact of fetal diagnosis on prevalence and spectrum of serious congenital heart disease at term in the UK. British Paediatric Cardiac Association. Lancet 354: 1242–1247 ik.
- 52. Fernandez CO, Ramaciotti C, Martin LB, Twickler DM (1998) The four-chamber view and its sensitivity in detecting congenital heart defects. Cardiology 90: 202–206.
- 53. Carvalho JS, Moscoso G, Ville Y (1998) First-trimester transabdominal fetal echocardiography. Lancet 351: 1023–1027.
- 54. Rychik J, Tian ZY, Fogel MA, Joshi V, Rose NC, et al. (1997) The single ventricle heart in the fetus: accuracy of prenatal diagnosis and outcome. J Perinatol 17: 183–188.
- 55. Brown DL, Durfee SM, Hornberger LK (1997) Ventricular discrepancy as a sonographic sign of coarctation of the fetal aorta: how reliable is it? J Ultrasound Med 16: 95–99.
- 56. Smith RS, Comstock CH, Kirk JS, Lee W (1995) Ultrasonographic left cardiac axis deviation: a marker for fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 85: 187–191.
- 57. Kirk JS, Riggs TW, Comstock CH, Lee W, Yang SS, et al. (1994) Prenatal screening for cardiac anomalies: the value of routine addition of the aortic root to the four-chamber view. Obstet Gynecol 84: 427–431.
- 58. Wigton TR, Sabbagha RE, Tamura RK, Cohen L, Minogue JP, et al. (1993) Sonographic diagnosis of congenital heart disease: comparison between the four-chamber view and multiple cardiac views. Obstet Gynecol 82: 219–224.
- 59. Gembruch U, Knopfle G, Bald R, Hansmann M (1993) Early diagnosis of fetal congenital heart disease by transvaginal echocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 3: 310–317.
- 60. Bronshtein M, Zimmer EZ, Gerlis LM, Lorber A, Drugan A (1993) Early ultrasound diagnosis of fetal congenital heart defects in high-risk and low-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 82: 225–229.
- 61. Bromley B, Estroff JA, Sanders SP, Parad R, Roberts D, et al. (1992) Fetal echocardiography: accuracy and limitations in a population at high and low risk for heart defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166: 1473–1481.
- 62. Hung JH, Ng HT, Shei KS, Pan YP, Yen KT, et al. (1991) Using ultrasonic measurement of cardiac size in predicting congenital heart defect. Fetal Diagn Ther 6: 65–73.
- 63. Achiron R, Weissman A, Rotstein Z, Lipitz S, Mashiach S, et al. (1994) Transvaginal echocardiographic examination of the fetal heart between 13 and 15 weeks’ gestation in a low-risk population. J Ultrasound Med 13: 783–789.
- 64. Carvalho JS, Moscoso G, Tekay A, Campbell S, Thilaganathan B, et al. (2004) Clinical impact of first and early second trimester fetal echocardiography on high risk pregnancies. Heart 90: 921–926.
- 65. Edwards MS, Ellings JM, Newman RB, Menard MK (1995) Predictive value of antepartum ultrasound examination for anomalies in twin gestations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6: 43–49.
- 66. Levi S, Hyjazi Y, Schaapst JP, Defoort P, Coulon R, et al. (1991) Sensitivity and specificity of routine antenatal screening for congenital anomalies by ultrasound: the Belgian Multicentric Study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1: 102–110.
- 67. Tegnander E, Williams W, Johansen OJ, Blaas HG, Eik-Nes SH (2006) Prenatal detection of heart defects in a non-selected population of 30,149 fetuses–detection rates and outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27: 252–265.
- 68. Weiner Z, Lorber A, Shalev E (2002) Diagnosis of congenital cardiac defects between 11 and 14 weeks’ gestation in high-risk patients. J Ultrasound Med 21: 23–29.
- 69. Nimrod C, Nicholson S, Machin G, Harder J (1984) In utero evaluation of fetal cardiac structure: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 148: 516–518.
- 70. Vergani P, Mariani S, Ghidini A, Schiavina R, Cavallone M, et al. (1992) Screening for congenital heart disease with the four-chamber view of the fetal heart. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167: 1000–1003.
- 71. Volpe P, De Robertis V, Campobasso G, Tempesta A, Volpe G, et al. (2012) Diagnosis of congenital heart disease by early and second-trimester fetal echocardiography. J Ultrasound Med 31: 563–568.
- 72. Ozkutlu S, Akca T, Kafali G, Beksac S (2010) The results of fetal echocardiography in a tertiary center and comparison of low- and high-risk pregnancies for fetal congenital heart defects. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 10: 263–269.
- 73. Espinoza J, Lee W, Comstock C, Romero R, Yeo L, et al. (2010) Collaborative study on 4-dimensional echocardiography for the diagnosis of fetal heart defects: the COFEHD study. J Ultrasound Med 29: 1573–1580.
- 74. Bennasar M, Martinez JM, Gomez O, Bartrons J, Olivella A, et al. (2010) Accuracy of four-dimensional spatiotemporal image correlation echocardiography in the prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36: 458–464.
- 75. Abu-Rustum RS, Daou L, Abu-Rustum SE (2010) Role of ultrasonography in early gestation in the diagnosis of congenital heart defects. J Ultrasound Med 29: 817–821.
- 76. Wu Q, Li M, Ju L, Zhang W, Yang X, et al. (2009) Application of the 3-vessel view in routine prenatal sonographic screening for congenital heart disease. J Ultrasound Med 28: 1319–1324.
- 77. Bernard LS, Ramos GA, Fines V, Hull AD (2009) Reducing the cost of detection of congenital heart disease in fetuses of women with pregestational diabetes mellitus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33: 676–682.
- 78. Bennasar M, Martinez JM, Olivella A, del Rio M, Gomez O, et al. (2009) Feasibility and accuracy of fetal echocardiography using four-dimensional spatiotemporal image correlation technology before 16 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33: 645–651.
- 79. Rizzo G, Capponi A, Muscatello A, Cavicchioni O, Vendola M, et al. (2008) Examination of the fetal heart by four-dimensional ultrasound with spatiotemporal image correlation during routine second-trimester examination: the ‘three-steps technique’. Fetal Diagn Ther 24: 126–131.
- 80. Paladini D, Sglavo G, Greco E, Nappi C (2008) Cardiac screening by STIC: can sonologists performing the 20-week anomaly scan pick up outflow tract abnormalities by scrolling the A-plane of STIC volumes? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32: 865–870.
- 81. Khoo NS, Van Essen P, Richardson M, Robertson T (2008) Effectiveness of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects in South Australia: a population analysis 1999–2003. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 48: 559–563.
- 82. Plesinac S, Terzic M, Stimec B, Plecas D (2007) Value of fetal echocardiography in diagnosis of congenital heart disease in a Serbian university hospital. Int J Fertil Womens Med 52: 89–92.
- 83. Pascal CJ, Huggon I, Sharland GK, Simpson JM (2007) An echocardiographic study of diagnostic accuracy, prediction of surgical approach, and outcome for fetuses diagnosed with discordant ventriculo-arterial connections. Cardiol Young 17: 528–534.
- 84. Li H, Meng T, Shang T, Guan YP, Zhou WW, et al. (2007) Fetal echocardiographic screening in twins for congenital heart diseases. Chin Med J (Engl) 120: 1391–1394.
- 85. Ogge G, Gaglioti P, Maccanti S, Faggiano F, Todros T (2006) Prenatal screening for congenital heart disease with four-chamber and outflow-tract views: a multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 779–784.
- 86. Goncalves LF, Espinoza J, Romero R, Kusanovic JP, Swope B, et al. (2006) Four-dimensional ultrasonography of the fetal heart using a novel Tomographic Ultrasound Imaging display. J Perinat Med 34: 39–55.
- 87. Del Bianco A, Russo S, Lacerenza N, Rinaldi M, Rinaldi G, et al. (2006) Four chamber view plus three-vessel and trachea view for a complete evaluation of the fetal heart during the second trimester. J Perinat Med 34: 309–312.
- 88. Becker R, Wegner RD (2006) Detailed screening for fetal anomalies and cardiac defects at the 11–13-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27: 613–618.
- 89. Zhou QC, Zhang J, Zhang M, Peng QH, Cao DM, et al. (2005) Utilising ductus venosus Doppler waveform and four-chamber view to screen for foetal cardiac malformation in early second trimester of pregnancy. Chin Med J (Engl) 118: 1791–1796.
- 90. Sklansky M, Miller D, Devore G, Kung G, Pretorius D, et al. (2005) Prenatal screening for congenital heart disease using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography and a novel ‘sweep volume’ acquisition technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25: 435–443.
- 91. Paladini D, Vassallo M, Sglavo G, Russo MG, Martinelli P (2005) Diagnosis and outcome of congenital heart disease in fetuses from multiple pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 25: 403–406.
- 92. Ozkutlu S, Ayabakan C, Karagoz T, Onderoglu L, Deren O, et al. (2005) Prenatal echocardiographic diagnosis of congenital heart disease: comparison of past and current results. Turk J Pediatr 47: 232–238.
- 93. McAuliffe FM, Trines J, Nield LE, Chitayat D, Jaeggi E, et al. (2005) Early fetal echocardiography–a reliable prenatal diagnosis tool. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193: 1253–1259.
- 94. Machlitt A, Heling KS, Chaoui R (2004) Increased cardiac atrial-to-ventricular length ratio in the fetal four-chamber view: a new marker for atrioventricular septal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24: 618–622.
- 95. Galindo A, Comas C, Martinez JM, Gutierrez-Larraya F, Carrera JM, et al. (2003) Cardiac defects in chromosomally normal fetuses with increased nuchal translucency at 10–14 weeks of gestation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 13: 163–170.
- 96. Bronshtein M, Zimmer EZ, Blazer S (2003) Accuracy of transvaginal sonography for diagnosis of complete atrioventricular septal defect in early pregnancy. Am J Cardiol 91: 903–906.
- 97. Skeels M, Taylor D, Park J, Parrish M, Choy M (2002) Test characteristics of a level I or II fetal ultrasound in detecting structural heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 23: 594–597.
- 98. Haak MC, Bartelings MM, Gittenberger-De Groot AC, Van Vugt JM (2002) Cardiac malformations in first-trimester fetuses with increased nuchal translucency: ultrasound diagnosis and postmortem morphology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20: 14–21.
- 99. Comas Gabriel C, Galindo A, Martinez JM, Carrera JM, Gutierrez-Larraya F, et al. (2002) Early prenatal diagnosis of major cardiac anomalies in a high-risk population. Prenat Diagn 22: 586–593.
- 100. Meyer-Wittkopf M, Cooper S, Sholler G (2001) Correlation between fetal cardiac diagnosis by obstetric and pediatric cardiologist sonographers and comparison with postnatal findings. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 17: 392–397.
- 101. Berghella V, Pagotto L, Kaufman M, Huhta JC, Wapner RJ (2001) Accuracy of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defects. Fetal Diagn Ther 16: 407–412.
- 102. Simpsom JM, Jones A, Callaghan N, Sharland GK (2000) Accuracy and limitations of transabdominal fetal echocardiography at 12–15 weeks of gestation in a population at high risk for congenital heart disease. BJOG 107: 1492–1497.
- 103. Rustico MA, Benettoni A, D’Ottavio G, Fischer-Tamaro L, Conoscenti GC, et al. (2000) Early screening for fetal cardiac anomalies by transvaginal echocardiography in an unselected population: the role of operator experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16: 614–619.
- 104. Zosmer N, Souter VL, Chan CS, Huggon IC, Nicolaides KH (1999) Early diagnosis of major cardiac defects in chromosomally normal fetuses with increased nuchal translucency. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106: 829–833.
- 105. Stefos T, Plachouras N, Sotiriadis A, Papadimitriou D, Almoussa N, et al. (1999) Routine obstetrical ultrasound at 18–22 weeks: our experience on 7,236 fetuses. J Matern Fetal Med 8: 64–69.
- 106. Ozkutlu S, Saraclar M (1999) The accuracy of antenatal fetal echocardiography. Turk J Pediatr 41: 349–352.
- 107. Hafner E, Scholler J, Schuchter K, Sterniste W, Philipp K (1998) Detection of fetal congenital heart disease in a low-risk population. Prenat Diagn 18: 808–815.
- 108. Todros T, Faggiano F, Chiappa E, Gaglioti P, Mitola B, et al. (1997) Accuracy of routine ultrasonography in screening heart disease prenatally. Gruppo Piemontese for Prenatal Screening of Congenital Heart Disease. Prenat Diagn 17: 901–906.
- 109. Kirk JS, Comstock CH, Lee W, Smith RS, Riggs TW, et al. (1997) Sonographic screening to detect fetal cardiac anomalies: a 5-year experience with 111 abnormal cases. Obstet Gynecol 89: 227–232.
- 110. Crane JM, Ash K, Fink N, Desjardins C (1997) Abnormal fetal cardiac axis in the detection of intrathoracic anomalies and congenital heart disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 10: 90–93.
- 111. Stumpflen I, Stumpflen A, Wimmer M, Bernaschek G (1996) Effect of detailed fetal echocardiography as part of routine prenatal ultrasonographic screening on detection of congenital heart disease. Lancet 348: 854–857.
- 112. Buskens E, Stewart PA, Hess J, Grobbee DE, Wladimiroff JW (1996) Efficacy of fetal echocardiography and yield by risk category. Obstet Gynecol 87: 423–428.
- 113. Buskens E, Grobbee DE, Frohn-Mulder IM, Stewart PA, Juttmann RE, et al. (1996) Efficacy of routine fetal ultrasound screening for congenital heart disease in normal pregnancy. Circulation 94: 67–72.
- 114. Saxena A, Shrivastava S, Kothari SS (1995) Value of antenatal echocardiography in high risk patients to diagnose congenital cardiac defects in fetus. Indian J Pediatr 62: 575–582.
- 115. Rustico MA, Benettoni A, D’Ottavio G, Maieron A, Fischer-Tamaro I, et al. (1995) Fetal heart screening in low-risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6: 313–319.
- 116.
Ott WJ (1995) The accuracy of antenatal fetal echocardiography screening in high- and low-risk patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172: 1741–1747; discussed 1747–1749.
- 117. Giancotti A, Torcia F, Giampa G, Gallo G, Gallo F, et al. (1995) Prenatal evaluation of congenital heart disease in high-risk pregnancies. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 22: 225–229.
- 118. Wilson NJ, Allen BC, Clarkson PM, Knight DB, Roberts AB, et al. (1994) One year audit of a referral fetal echocardiography service. N Z Med J 107: 258–260.
- 119. Achiron R, Glaser J, Gelernter I, Hegesh J, Yagel S (1992) Extended fetal echocardiographic examination for detecting cardiac malformations in low risk pregnancies. BMJ 304: 671–674.
- 120. Martin GR, Ruckman RN (1990) Fetal echocardiography: a large clinical experience and follow-up. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 3: 4–8.
- 121. Allan LD, Chita SK, Sharland GK, Fagg NL, Anderson RH, et al. (1989) The accuracy of fetal echocardiography in the diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Int J Cardiol 25: 279–288.
- 122. Copel JA, Pilu G, Green J, Hobbins JC, Kleinman CS (1987) Fetal echocardiographic screening for congenital heart disease: the importance of the four-chamber view. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157: 648–655.
- 123. Sholler GF, Whight CM, Celermajer JM (1986) Fetal echocardiography: experience and reason. Med J Aust 144: 250–252.
- 124. Volpe P, Tuo G, De Robertis V, Campobasso G, Marasini M, et al. (2010) Fetal interrupted aortic arch: 2D-4D echocardiography, associations and outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35: 302–309.
- 125. Smrcek JM, Berg C, Geipel A, Fimmers R, Axt-Fliedner R, et al. (2006) Detection rate of early fetal echocardiography and in utero development of congenital heart defects. J Ultrasound Med 25: 187–196.
- 126. Persico N, Moratalla J, Lombardi CM, Zidere V, Allan L, et al. (2011) Fetal echocardiography at 11–13 weeks by transabdominal high-frequency ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37: 296–301.
- 127. Chew C, Halliday JL, Riley MM, Penny DJ (2007) Population-based study of antenatal detection of congenital heart disease by ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29: 619–624.
- 128. Verheijen PM, Lisowski LA, Stoutenbeek P, Hitchcock JF, Brenner JI, et al. (2001) Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease affects preoperative acidosis in the newborn patient. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121: 798–803.
- 129. Vesel S, Rollings S, Jones A, Callaghan N, Simpson J, et al. (2006) Prenatally diagnosed pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect: echocardiography, genetics, associated anomalies and outcome. Heart 92: 1501–1505.
- 130. Strauss A, Toth B, Schwab B, Fuchshuber S, Schulze A, et al. (2001) Prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease and neonatal outcome–a six years experience. Eur J Med Res 6: 66–70.
- 131. Raboisson MJ, Samson C, Ducreux C, Rudigoz RC, Gaucherand P, et al. (2009) Impact of prenatal diagnosis of transposition of the great arteries on obstetric and early postnatal management. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 142: 18–22.
- 132. Khairy P, Ouyang DW, Fernandes SM, Lee-Parritz A, Economy KE, et al. (2006) Pregnancy outcomes in women with congenital heart disease. Circulation 113: 517–524.
- 133. Randall P, Brealey S, Hahn S, Khan KS, Parsons JM (2005) Accuracy of fetal echocardiography in the routine detection of congenital heart disease among unselected and low risk populations: a systematic review. BJOG 112: 24–30.
- 134. Rasiah SV, Publicover M, Ewer AK, Khan KS, Kilby MD, et al. (2006) A systematic review of the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound examination for detecting major congenital heart disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 110–116.
- 135. Devore GR, Polanko B (2005) Tomographic ultrasound imaging of the fetal heart: a new technique for identifying normal and abnormal cardiac anatomy. J Ultrasound Med 24: 1685–1696.
- 136. Vinals F, Tapia J, Giuliano A (2002) Prenatal detection of ductal-dependent congenital heart disease: how can things be made easier? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19: 246–249.
- 137. Hartge DR, Weichert J, Krapp M, Germer U, Gembruch U, et al. (2011) Results of early foetal echocardiography and cumulative detection rate of congenital heart disease. Cardiol Young 21: 505–517.