Amniotic fluid content in children with kidney and urinary tract anomalies determines pre- and postnatal development.

BACKGROUND: Renal oligohydramnios (ROH) describes an abnormally low volume of amniotic fluid (AF) during pregnancy. ROH is mostly caused by congenital fetal kidney anomalies. The ROH diagnosis frequently implies an increased risk of peri- and postnatal fetal mortality and morbidity. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of ROH on pre-and postnatal development in children with congenital kidney anomalies. METHODS: This retrospective study included 168 fetuses with anomalies in the kidney and urinary tract. Based on the amount of AF measured by ultrasound, patients were divided into three groups: normal amniotic fluid (NAF), amniotic fluid in the lower normal range (LAF), and ROH. These groups were compared with respect to prenatal sonographic parameters, perinatal outcomes, and postnatal outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 168 patients with congenital kidney anomalies, 26 (15%) had ROH, 132 (79%) had NAF, and 10 (6%) had LAF. Of the 26 families affected by ROH, 14 (54%) decided to terminate pregnancy. Of 10 live-born children in the ROH group, 6 (60%) survived the observation time; of these, 5/6 presented with chronic kidney disease, stages I-III, at their last examination. The main differences in postnatal development between the ROH group and the NAF and LAF groups were: restricted height and weight gain, respiratory issues, complicated feeding, and the presence of extrarenal malformations. CONCLUSIONS: ROH is not a mandatory indicator of severe postnatal kidney function impairment. However, children with ROH have complicated peri-and postnatal periods, due to the presence of concomitant malformations, which must be considered in prenatal care. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Inadequate Timing Limits the Benefit of Antenatal Corticosteroids on Neonatal Outcome: Retrospective Analysis of a High-Risk Cohort of Preterm Infants in a Tertiary Center in Germany.

Introduction A common problem in the treatment of threatened preterm birth is the timing and the unrestricted use of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS). This study was performed to evaluate the independent effects of the distinct timing of antenatal corticosteroids on neonatal outcome parameters in a cohort of very low (VLBW; 1000 - 1500 g) and extreme low birth weight infants (ELBW; < 1000 g). We hypothesize that a prolonged ACS-to-delivery interval leads to an increase in respiratory complications. Materials and Methods Main data source was the prospectively collected single center data for the German nosocomial infection surveillance system (KISS) between 2015 and 2018. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent effects of the ACS-to-delivery interval on the need for ventilation, surfactant or the occurrence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, neonatal sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. Subgroup analysis was performed for ELBW and VLBW neonates. Results A total of 239 neonates were included. We demonstrate a significantly increased risk of respiratory distress characterized by the need for ventilation (OR 1.045; CI 1.011 - 1.080) and surfactant administration (OR 1.050, CI 1.018 - 1.083) depending on the ACS-to-delivery interval irrespective of other confounders. Every additional day between ACS and delivery increased the risk for ventilation by 4.5% and for surfactant administration by 5%. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences of respiratory complications in VLBW infants. Conclusions Our data strongly support the deliberate use and timing of antenatal corticosteroids in pregnancies with threatened preterm birth versus a liberal strategy. When given more than 7 days before birth, each day between application and delivery increases is relevant concerning major effects on the infant. Especially VLBW preterm neonates benefit from optimal timing.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing - When Is It Advantageous to Apply.

Nowadays it is common sense in obstetrics that an increased risk for pregnancy loss due to invasive testing does not exist. Nonetheless, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a hot topic, even though this approach does not provide a reduction of unintentionally induced abortions. NIPT has a number of shortcuts which are highlighted in this review, including: (1) in NIPT placental rather than fetal DNA is studied, (2) NIPT fails in 2-6% of cases, and (3) trisomy 21 accounts for only ∼50% of existing chromosomal aberrations. Thus, we agree with the literature that NIPT is a fascinating possibility to gain information on unborn life from minimal amounts of DNA. However, it remains a pure risk estimation test directed towards the detection of specific chromosomal abnormalities from peripheral blood of the pregnant woman. It is important to highlight that families buying this test, and getting a normal result, may be provided with a false sense of security. Thus, careful and comprehensive genetic counselling should be performed before the test is offered, and should include a clear explanation of the advantages and disadvantages, as well as limitations, compared to other methods.