Impact of New Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Early First‐Trimester Diagnostic Criteria for Nonviable Pregnancy. (1st September 2014) - Hu, Maowen
Abstract : Objectives: New early first‐trimester diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy recommended by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound via a multispecialty consensus panel extended the diagnostic size criteria of crown‐rump length from 5 to 7 mm for embryos without a heartbeat and mean sac diameter from 16 to 25 mm for "empty" sacs. Our study assessed the potential impact of the new criteria on the number of additional follow‐up sonograms these changes would engender. Methods: A retrospective study of all first‐trimester sonograms in women with first trimester bleeding from 1999 to 2008 was conducted. Everyone included in the study had a visible gestational sac in the uterus. There were no pregnancies of unknown location or ectopic pregnancies included in this study cohort. Pregnancy of unknown location was used to describe cases in which there were no signs of pregnancy inside or outside the uterus on transvaginal sonography despite a positive pregnancy test result. A total of 1013 patients met the inclusion criteria. Results: Seven hundred fifty‐two patients (74%) had identifiable embryos, and 261 (26%) did not. Of those with an identifiable embryo, 286 (38%) had no detectable embryonic cardiac activity. The breakdown of crown‐rump lengths in this group was as follows: 100 measuring less than 5 mm, 36 measuring 5 to 7 mm, and 150 measuring 7 mm or greater. The breakdown of mean sac diameters in those without a visible embryo was as follows: 120 measuring less than 16 mm, 90 measuring 16 to 25 mm, and 51 measuring 25 mm or greater. Conclusions: When diagnosing a failed pregnancy, there can be no room for error. Only 126 of 1013 early pregnancies threatening to abort (12%) fell into the more conservative zones defined by the new compared to the former size criteria (crown‐rump length, 5–7 mm; mean sac diameter, 16–25 mm). Therefore, the potential impact of the new guidelines on follow‐up sonograms does not appear inordinate.