Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Fetal heart failure might link nuchal translucency and Down's syndrome
Since the first report on the ability of nuchal
translucency measurement to detect pregnancies affected by Down's
syndrome by Nicolaides et al in 19941 over 20 studies have
been published on the issue. Despite all these efforts, however, the
exact performance of nuchal translucency measurement in detecting
Down's syndrome is still unknown. Recent large studies in low risk
populations have evaluated the performance of nuchal translucency
measurement in detecting Down's syndrome, but the result of the nuchal
translucency measurement had already been used in the risk assessment
(by identifying cases of Down's syndrome that would never have reached
term). In these studies fetuses affected by Down's syndrome which have an increased nuchal translucency are thus more likely to be detected than those affected fetuses with a normal nuchal translucency The paper by Hyett et al in this week's issue reports on the
association between nuchal translucency and major defects of the heart
and the great arteries (p 81).9 Among 29 154
chromosomally normal pregnancies 28 out of 50 cases with major cardiac
defects were detected using the 95th percentile of nuchal translucency as a cut off point. These findings support the hypothesis that increased nuchal translucency may be due to failure of the fetal heart.
10 11
But what are the practical consequences of
these findings?
A nuchal translucency above the 95th percentile in a population in
which the prevalence of cardiac anomalies is 1-2 per 1000 implies a
probability of a cardiac anomaly of about 1.5 per 1000. Referral of
women with nuchal translucency measurements above the 95th percentile
to a fetal cardiology unit would imply that 5% of all pregnant women
have to be subjected to specialist fetal echocardiography for a chance
of 1 in 66 (28/1850) of finding a cardiac anomaly. It is important to
realise that 13 of the 50 cardiac anomalies reported by Hyett et al
were detected at postmortem examination after intrauterine death or
termination of the pregnancy for non-cardiac defects. In these 13 cases
the only clinical consequence is an increased risk of a cardiac anomaly
in a future pregnancy. If we exclude them, 5% of all pregnant women
would be subject to specialist fetal echocardiography for a chance of 1 in 123 (15/1850) of finding a cardiac anomaly. Increasing the cut off value of nuchal translucency to 3.5 mm would reduce the number of
referrals to just over 1%, for a chance of having a cardiac anomaly of
1 in 17. This may be far more acceptable, although the sensitivity
drops under 50%.
When assessing the value of nuchal translucency measurement in
detecting cardiac anomalies it is important to realise that at present
there is no obstetric intervention for fetuses with cardiac anomalies
diagnosed antenatally, other then referring these women to a centre
with cardiosurgical facilities for delivery or termination of
pregnancy. Moreover, we need to be aware of the anxiety induced in
parents by referring them for additional fetal echocardiography. After
the detection of increased nuchal translucency in the first trimester
most women will initially be offered fetal karyotyping based on their
increased risk of Down's syndrome. Once the fetal karyotype is found
to be normal, additional echocardiography implies that the parents will
be confronted with the possibility of cardiac anomalies.
Apart from the potential clinical implications, the association between
nuchal translucency and cardiac anomalies is of interest because a
substantial number of live births with Down's syndrome have cardiac
anomalies. The results published today suggest that fetal heart failure
might play an important part in the association between nuchal
translucency and Down's syndrome. If this is so, nuchal translucency
measurement might mainly detect those fetuses affected by Down's
syndrome that also have cardiac anomalies. One could therefore
hypothesise that the fetal loss rate in fetuses affected by Down's
syndrome with an increased nuchal translucency is higher than that in
fetuses affected by Down's syndrome that have a normal nuchal translucency.
Unfortunately, in virtually all the studies pregnancies affected by
Down's syndrome with an increased nuchal translucency were terminated.
Nevertheless, the only study that did report on intrauterine lethality
in fetuses affected by Down's syndrome in relation to nuchal
translucency showed an almost doubled risk of fetal loss in those with
an increased nuchal translucency.10 This would have
limited consequences if nuchal translucency measurement detected almost
all pregnancies affected by Down's syndrome. But if the detection rate
of nuchal translucency measurement for Down's syndrome is lower, its
potential to detect those fetuses affected by Down's syndrome that
would result in the live birth of children with Down's syndrome would
not be as good as we believe it is.
In view of this problem it is important to compare the observed number
of pregnancies affected by Down's syndrome in a population of women
exposed to a screening programme with the number of affected pregnancies that would be expected in the absence of screening, based
on the age distribution of the included women. In doing so, Haddow
recently showed that the detection rate of nuchal translucency measurement in the UK mulitcentre project on the assessment of risk of
trisomy 21 was 60% instead of the reported 82%.
5 7
Extrapolation of the 60% detection rate at 12 weeks to a similar rate
at term presumes that the risk of fetal loss of a Down's syndrome
pregnancy is independent of the nuchal translucency. However, the
association between nuchal translucency and cardiac anomalies, as
suggested by this week's report, make this presumption questionable.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Joseph Hospital,
PO Box 7777, 5500 MB Veldhoven, Netherlands (bwmol{at}knmg.nl)
and this
may inflate the reported detection rate of nuchal translucency measurement.2-4 Even the two largest studies reported
detection rates as different as 72%5 and
54%.6 As a consequence, the choice between nuchal
translucency measurement and serum screening for Down's syndrome
remains subject to debate.
7 8
© BMJ 1999