Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2308-2151
Defining an Evaluation Protocol for the Infant with Fetal Echogenic Bowel
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/ajp/EFirst/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-a-2308-2151_23jul0427-1.jpg)
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to develop an algorithm for pediatricians to use for infants diagnosed with fetal echogenic bowel (FEB) to ensure that each patient is fully evaluated for possible complications while avoiding unnecessary morbidity and mortality and health care-associated costs.
Study Design This was a prospective cohort of neonates for which a diagnosis of FEB was made during a Level 2 anatomy ultrasound between February 2016 and January 2017. Women diagnosed with FEB were offered perinatal genetic counseling and testing. These women also received increased third trimester fetal surveillance, including daily fetal kick counts, fetal growth scans every 3 to 4 weeks beginning at 28 weeks, and weekly fetal nonstress test (NST) and/or BPP beginning at 32 weeks. After delivery, neonates received a postnatal evaluation including birth weight, gestational age at birth, presence of other abnormalities, and associated perinatal morbidity and mortality. Comparison between findings was performed using chi-square test. All statistical evaluation was performed using SPSS.
Results Among 919 pregnant patients who received Level 2 anatomy ultrasounds at a Regional Perinatal Center during the study period, 70 received a diagnosis of FEB. Of those diagnosed with FEB, 52 (74.3%) delivered at the same Regional Medical Center. Of these 52 delivered infants, 3 (5.8%) were intrauterine fetal demises (IUFDs) and 4 (7.6%) had unaffected twins. Only one multifetal gestation had the diagnosis of FEB in both the twins. Only 19 of the infants delivered had a kidney, ureter, and bladder X-ray (KUB) performed secondary to prematurity or abnormal exams.
Conclusion This study showed that the majority of infants diagnosed with FEB had a normal exam following delivery, and that most of the neonatal outcomes of neonatal intensive care unit admissions and other neonatal complications are a result of prematurity rather than FEB. Although the algorithm did not have significant results, it is easy to follow and implement in larger studies.
Key Points
-
Majority of infants with FEB have a normal physical exam after delivery.
-
Majority of neonatal outcomes evaluated were a result of prematurity rather than FEB.
-
FEB is a soft marker for potential abnormalities and fetal morbidity/mortality.
Publication History
Received: 14 July 2023
Accepted: 15 April 2024
Accepted Manuscript online:
17 April 2024
Article published online:
16 May 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
-
References
- 1 Slotnick RN, Abuhamad AZ. Prognostic implications of fetal echogenic bowel. Lancet 1996; 347 (8994) 85-87
- 2 Buiter HD, Holswilder-Olde Scholtenhuis MA, Bouman K, van Baren R, Bilardo CM, Bos AF. Outcome of infants presenting with echogenic bowel in the second trimester of pregnancy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2013; 98 (03) F256-F259
- 3 Iruretagoyena JI, Bankowsky H, Heiser T, Birkeland L, Grady M, Shah D. Outcomes for fetal echogenic bowel during the second trimester ultrasound. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23 (11) 1271-1273
- 4 Simon-Bouy B, Satre V, Ferec C. et al; French Collaborative Group. Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: a large French collaborative study of 682 cases. Am J Med Genet A 2003; 121A (03) 209-213
- 5 Saha E, Mullins EW, Paramasivam G, Kumar S, Lakasing L. Perinatal outcomes of fetal echogenic bowel. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32 (08) 758-764
- 6 Goetzinger KR, Cahill AG, Macones GA, Odibo AO. Echogenic bowel on second-trimester ultrasonography: evaluating the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (06) 1341-1348
- 7 Chasen ST. Fetal echogenic bowel. In: Wilkins-Haug L, Levine D, Barss VA. (eds), UpToDate. Accessed April 21, 2018 at: www.uptodate.com/
- 8 Statistical Atlas. Overview of the Macon Area. Georgia. April 2015 . Accessed April 26, 2024 at: http://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/Georgia/Macon/Overview
- 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Georgia: State Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Profile. February 2016 . Accessed April 30, 2018 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/index.html
- 10 University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings: Georgia. 2018 . Accessed April 26, 2024 at: https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/health-data/georgia?year=2018