Protocol for the e-POWUS Project: multicentre blinded-randomised controlled trial of ultrasound speed choice to improve sonography quality in pregnant women with obesity

Amélie Delabaere, Benoit Chauveau, Didier Lémery, Amandine Ollier, Candy Guiguet-Auclair, Charline Mourgues, Anne Legrand, Amélie Delabaere, Benoit Chauveau, Didier Lémery, Amandine Ollier, Candy Guiguet-Auclair, Charline Mourgues, Anne Legrand

Abstract

Introduction: During pregnancy, maternal obesity increases the risk of fetal abnormalities. Despite advances in ultrasound imaging, the assessment of fetal anatomy is less thorough among these women. Currently, the construction of ultrasound images uses a conventional ultrasound propagation velocity (1540 m/s), which does not correspond to the slower speed of propagation in fat tissue.The main objective of this randomised study is to compare the completeness of fetal ultrasonography according to whether the operator could choose the ultrasound velocity (1420, 1480 or 1540 m/s) or was required to apply the 1540 m/s velocity.

Methods and analysis: This randomised trial is an impact study to compare a diagnostic innovation with the reference technique. The trial inclusion criteria require that a pregnant woman with obesity be undergoing a fetal morphology examination by ultrasound from 20+0 to 25+0 gestational weeks.Randomisation will allocate women into two groups. The first will be the 'modulable speed' group, in which operators can choose the speed of ultrasound propagation to be considered for the morphological analysis: 1420, 1480 or 1540 m/s. In the second 'conventional speed' group, operators will perform the morphological examination with the ultrasound speed fixed at 1540 m/s. The adjudication committee, two independent experts, will validate the completeness of each examination and the quality of the images.

Ethics and dissemination: This research protocol does not change the standard management. The only possible impact is an improvement of the ultrasound examination by improving the quality of the image and the completeness of morphological examination. The Agence du Médicament et produits de santé approved this study (2018-A03478-47). The anonymised data will be available on request from the principal investigator. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) Registry (NCT04212234).

Keywords: prenatal diagnosis; ultrasonography; ultrasound.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. BMI, body mass index; GW, gestational weeks; US, ultrasound.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The ultrasound images recommended by CNEOF (A) for the second trimester ultrasound examination; (B) for the third trimester ultrasound examination. CNEOF, French National Conference of Obstetric and Fetal Ultrasound.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Time schedule of participant enrolment, interventions and visits.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Standardised measurements taken halfway between the umbilicus and the pubis, performed during the first ultrasound (US) appointment of the second and of the third trimester: adipose tissue thickness (ATT)—distance between probe and muscle fascia; distance between probe and amniotic fluid (PAF). Organ-specific measurements for each ultrasound image recommended by the CNEOF: organ-specific scanning plane (ssp) ATT; ssp distance between the probe and the target organ (PTO). CNEOF, French National Conference of Obstetric and Fetal Ultrasound.

References

    1. Flegal KM, Kruszon-Moran D, Carroll MD, et al. . Trends in obesity among adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA 2016;315:2284–91. 10.1001/jama.2016.6458
    1. Zeitlin J, Mohangoo A, Cuttini M, et al. . The European perinatal health report: comparing the health and care of pregnant women and newborn babies in Europe. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:681–2. 10.1136/jech.2009.087296
    1. Stothard KJ, Tennant PWG, Bell R, et al. . Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2009;301:636–50. 10.1001/jama.2009.113
    1. Nuthalapaty FS, Rouse DJ. The impact of obesity on obstetrical practice and outcome. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:898–913. discussion 980-981. 10.1097/01.grf.0000135358.34673.48
    1. Marchi J, Berg M, Dencker A, et al. . Risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, for the mother and baby: a systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev 2015;16:621–38. 10.1111/obr.12288
    1. Shaw GM, Velie EM, Schaffer D. Risk of neural tube defect-affected pregnancies among obese women. JAMA 1996;275:1093–6. 10.1001/jama.1996.03530380035028
    1. Werler MM, Louik C, Shapiro S, et al. . Prepregnant weight in relation to risk of neural tube defects. JAMA 1996;275:1089–92. 10.1001/jama.1996.03530380031027
    1. Paladini D. Sonography in obese and overweight pregnant women: clinical, medicolegal and technical issues. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:720–9. 10.1002/uog.6393
    1. Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E, et al. . The impact of maternal obesity on midtrimester sonographic visualization of fetal cardiac and craniospinal structures. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004;28:1607–11. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802759
    1. Hendler I, Blackwell SC, Bujold E, et al. . Suboptimal second-trimester ultrasonographic visualization of the fetal heart in obese women: should we repeat the examination? J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:1205–9. quiz 1210-1211. 10.7863/jum.2005.24.9.1205
    1. Fuchs F, Houllier M, Voulgaropoulos A, et al. . Factors affecting feasibility and quality of second-trimester ultrasound scans in obese pregnant women. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2013;41:40–6. 10.1002/uog.12311
    1. Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Effect of maternal obesity on the ultrasound detection of anomalous fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1001–7. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a1d2f5
    1. Thornburg LL, Miles K, Ho M, et al. . Fetal anatomic evaluation in the overweight and obese gravida. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:670–5. 10.1002/uog.6401
    1. Szabo TL. Chapter 1 - Introduction. In: Diagnostic ultrasound imaging: inside out. 2nd edn. Academic Press, 2014: 1–37.
    1. Nelson TR, Pretorius DH. The Doppler signal: where does it come from and what does it mean? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:439–47. 10.2214/ajr.151.3.439
    1. Jensen JA. Medical ultrasound imaging. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2007;93:153–65. 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2006.07.025
    1. Wells PNT. Ultrasonic imaging of the human body. Rep Prog Phys 1999;62:671–722. 10.1088/0034-4885/62/5/201
    1. Carson PL. Biomedical ultrasonics. By P.N.T. Wells, Ph.D., Academic Press, Inc. London, Copyright 1977. 635 pages. $46.90. J Clin Ultrasound 1978;6:126–7. 10.1002/jcu.1870060221
    1. Napolitano D, Chou C-H, McLaughlin G, et al. . Sound speed correction in ultrasound imaging. Ultrasonics 2006;44 Suppl 1:e43–6. 10.1016/j.ultras.2006.06.061
    1. Piccoli CW, Forsberg F. Advanced ultrasound techniques for breast imaging. Semin Roentgenol 2011;46:60–7. 10.1053/j.ro.2010.06.006
    1. Barr DB, Ananth CV, Yan X, et al. . Pesticide concentrations in maternal and umbilical cord sera and their relation to birth outcomes in a population of pregnant women and newborns in New Jersey. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:790–5. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.007
    1. Chauveau B, Auclair C, Legrand A, et al. . Improving image quality of mid-trimester fetal sonography in obese women: role of ultrasound propagation velocity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:769–75. 10.1002/uog.19015
    1. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine . AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:1083–101. 10.7863/ultra.32.6.1083
    1. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, et al. . Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:116–26. 10.1002/uog.8831
    1. Viossat P, Ville Y, Bessis R, et al. . [Report of the French Comité national technique de l'échographie de dépistage prénatal (CNTEDP)--Recommendations for second line prenatal ultrasound]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2014;42:51–60. 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2013.11.004
    1. Moussa HN, Alrais MA, Leon MG, et al. . Obesity epidemic: impact from preconception to postpartum. Future Sci OA 2016;2:FSO137. 10.4155/fsoa-2016-0035
    1. Salomon LJ, Winer N, Bernard JP, et al. . A score-based method for quality control of fetal images at routine second-trimester ultrasound examination. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:822–7. 10.1002/pd.2016
    1. Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Maternal obesity limits the ultrasound evaluation of fetal anatomy. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28:1025–30. 10.7863/jum.2009.28.8.1025

Source: PubMed

3
購読する