Current practice of first-trimester ultrasound screening for structural fetal anomalies in developed countries

Objectives

First-trimester ultrasound screening is increasingly performed to detect fetal anomalies early in pregnancy, aiming to enhance reproductive autonomy for future parents. This study aims to display the current practice of first-trimester ultrasound screening in developed countries.

Method

An online survey among 47 prenatal screening experts in developed countries.

Results

First-trimester structural anomaly screening is available in 30 of the 33 countries and is mostly offered to all women with generally high uptakes. National protocols are available in 23/30 (76.7%) countries, but the extent of anatomy assessment varies. Monitoring of scan quality occurs in 43.3% of the countries. 23/43 (53.5%) of the respondents considered the quality of first-trimester ultrasound screening unequal in different regions of their country.

Conclusions

First-trimester screening for structural fetal anomalies is widely offered in developed countries, but large differences are reported in availability and use of screening protocols, the extent of anatomy assessment, training and experience of sonographers and quality monitoring systems. Consequently, this results in an unequal offer to parents in developed countries, sometimes even within the same country. Furthermore, as offer and execution differ widely, this has to be taken into account when results of screening policies are scientifically published or compared.     

Have the results of the TOTAL-trials changed the attitude and practice of maternal-fetal medicine specialists?

Objective

To explore the views and practices of maternal-fetal medicine specialists on offering fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion (FETO) for left- and right-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia (LCDH, RCDH) in the post Tracheal Occlusion To Accelerate Lung growth (TOTAL)-trial era.

Method

Cross-sectional knowledge, attitude and practice survey was conducted among 105 attendees of the 19th World Congress of Fetal Medicine.

Results

On average, respondents were knowledgeable about CDH, involved in research, and provided antenatal treatment options. Four out of five (82%) agreed that neonatal survival in LCDH can be reliably predicted in the prenatal period. Few respondents considered the exact risks and benefits of FETO for severe LCDH as being unclear (16%), yet half were uncertain about this for moderate LCDH (57%) and severe RCDH (45%). Most respondents offer FETO for severe LCDH (97%) and RCDH (79%), but only 59% offer it for moderate LCDH. However, half of respondents (58%) stated that not offering FETO for moderate LCDH would be a psychological burden for parents.

Conclusion

Respondents consider the risk-benefit ratio of FETO for severe LCDH clear and consistently offer FETO, but not for moderate LDCH and severe RCDH. However, not offering the option of FETO to parents was considered a psychological burden.     

Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

Objective

To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Method

A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious.

Results

Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were “I would never terminate my pregnancy” (57.1%) and “every child is welcome” (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy.

Conclusion

The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.     

A cross-country comparison of pregnant women's decision-making and perspectives when opting for non-invasive prenatal testing in the Netherlands and Belgium

Background

The Netherlands and Belgium have been among the first countries to offer non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier screening test. Despite similarities, differences exist in counseling modalities and test uptake. This study explored decision-making and perspectives of pregnant women who opted for NIPT in both countries.

Methods

A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women in the Netherlands (NL) (n = 587) and Belgium (BE) (n = 444) opting for NIPT, including measures on informed choice, personal and societal perspectives on trisomy 21, 18 and 13 and pregnancy termination.

Results

Differences between Dutch and Belgian women were shown in the level of informed choice (NL: 83% vs. BE: 59%, p < 0.001), intention to terminate the pregnancy in case of confirmed trisomy 21 (NL: 51% vs. BE: 62%, p = 0.003) and trisomy 13/18 (NL: 80% vs. BE: 73%, p = 0.020). More Belgian women considered trisomy 21 a severe condition (NL: 64% vs. BE: 81%, p < 0.001). Belgian women more frequently indicated that they believed parents are judged for having a child with trisomy 21 (BE: 42% vs. NL: 16%, p < 0.001) and were less positive about quality of care and support for children with trisomy 21 (BE: 23% vs. NL: 62%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Differences in women's decision-making regarding NIPT and the conditions screened for may be influenced by counseling aspects and country-specific societal and cultural contexts.