13.07.2015 Views

Official Proceedings - AIUM

Official Proceedings - AIUM

Official Proceedings - AIUM

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine <strong>Proceedings</strong> J Ultrasound Med 32(suppl):S1–S134, 20131539989 The Work Flow Impact of Universal Transvaginal CervicalLength Screening With Anatomic Surveys in an UltrasoundUnitEileen Wang,* Alexander Friedman, Samuel Parry, NadavSchwartz Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USAObjectives—Low-risk women with a short cervix transvaginallyat time of the second-trimester anatomic survey may have an increasedrisk of preterm birth. Vaginal progesterone may be offered toreduce this risk. Cost-effective analyses of universal transvaginal cervicalscreening (TVCL) have not included the impact of the extra time to performTVCLs on the work flow of an ultrasound (US) lab. We comparethe times for anatomic surveys and growth scans in periods before andafter universal TVCLs were instituted.Methods—This is a prospective observational study done in anurban tertiary care center. In our 4-room US unit, after sonographers (SGs)scan, the images are reviewed by the physician (MD), who then sees thepatient to either scan or discuss results. After implementation of TVCL, patientsvoid prior to TVCL after the anatomic survey. Durations of studieswere recorded for quality improvement. Studies by maternal-fetal medicinefellows or with missing times were excluded. The times for anatomicsurveys, for growth scans, and for patients to void were collected and categorizedper SG (n = 8) and per supervising MD (n = 9). Data from 5weeks before and from a convenience sample of 6 weeks after implementationwere compared. The data are presented as mean ± SD. The Studentt test and 1-way analysis of variance were used to evaluate pre-CL andpost-CL study times.Results—The time difference in anatomic surveys before (n =275) vs after (n = 340) universal TVCL screening was statistically significant,46.9 ± 11.6 vs 58.3 ± 11.9 minutes (P < .0001), regardless of MD.Seventy-three percent of postimplementation anatomic surveys includedTVCLs with a mean duration of 61.0 ± 10.5 minutes. Mean voiding timewas 9.1 ± 6.2 minutes, ranging from 2 to 35 minutes. The mean time increaseper SG per scan with TVCL was 9.1 ± 3.8 minutes. As expected,there was no difference in the duration of growth scans in the 2 time periods(pre, 27.8 ± 11.2 vs post, 28.4 ± 9.6 minutes; P = .5).Conclusions—Universal TVCL lengthens each anatomic surveyby almost 15 minutes, primarily due to the time to void. This must beaccounted for when exploring ways to optimize work flow. The potentialto impact the number of scans that can be accommodated should be consideredin future cost-benefit studies.1540030 Association of Ultrasonographic Twin Estimated FetalWeight Discrepancies With Early Neonatal OutcomesPedro Roca, 1 * Allen Kunselman, 2 Anthony Ambrose, 1Ian Paul, 3 Dennis Mujsce, 3 Serdar Ural, 1 Kari Whitley 11Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2 Public Health Science, 3 Pediatrics,Penn State Hershey, Hershey, Pennsylvania USAObjectives—Determine the association between increased fetalsize discrepancy during routine second-trimester ultrasound and poor perinataloutcomes.Methods—We designed a retrospective study including all twinpregnancies from our institution before December 2009. We excludedpregnancies with major fetal anomalies. A total of 98 pregnancies met theinclusion criteria. The second-trimester ultrasound was performed on averageat 20.0 weeks (SD, 2.5). The average estimated fetal weight (EFW)of twin A was 356 g (SD, 271) and for twin B was 351 g (SD, 247). Themedian percent discrepancy in EFW relative to the lighter twin in eachpregnancy was 6.8% (25th percentile, 3.8%; 75th percentile, 25.0%). Thirteen(13.3%) of the pregnancies were at least 20% discordant.Results—Generalized estimating equations with a logit linkwere used to assess the association of 4 predictors. There was no associationof the deviation from the mean EFW for twins with gestationalage at delivery (P = .84) or for twins with admission to the neonatal intensivecare unit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval[CI], 0.99–1.01; P = .53) after adjusting for EFW, week ofsecond-trimester ultrasound, and birth order. The only significant effectwas the association of the deviation from the mean EFW of twins withnecrotizing enterocolitis.Conclusions—For every 1-g increase in the deviation from themean EFW of twins, the odds of NEC increase by 1.03 (or 3%), adjustingfor EFW, week of second-trimester ultrasound, and birth order (AOR,1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.07; P = .02). This unique study shows that deviationfrom the mean EFW of twins during second-trimester ultrasound is a poorpredictor for early neonatal complications.Table 1. Predictor of OutcomesAOR (95% CI) [P]IV CatheterRDS MV Days (≥1 vs 0) NEC TPN NGTEFW (g) 0.998 1.00 0.996 0.98 0.995 0.997(0.994–1.002) (0.99–1.01) (0.991–1.001)(0.96–0.99) (0.991–1.000)(0.992–1.001)[.36] [.92] [.15] [.004] [.04] [.12]Deviation 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.03 1.01 1.00from (0.99–1.01) (1.00–1.02) (0.99–1.01) (1.01–1.07) (1.00–1.02) (0.99–1.01)mean [.48] [.13] [.46] [.02] [.06] [.41]EFW oftwins (g)Week of 1.36 1.14 1.81 5.32 1.76 1.552nd- (0.86–2.16) (0.56–2.35) (0.98–3.35) (2.12–13.28) (1.07–2.88) (0.92–2.62)trimester [.18] [.71] [.06] [

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!