Key result
Echocardiographic AV intervals were significantly longer than magnetocardiographic PR intervals overall, but this difference did not vary significantly between anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive cases (23.6 ms) and controls (20.4 ms, P = 0.222).
Why the study?
To evaluate the association between fetal echocardiographic AV and fMCG PR intervals at different gestational ages, determine if PR interval could be predicted by AV interval, and assess neonatal outcomes to develop criteria for fetal AVB-I.
Can fetal echocardiographic AV interval accurately predict magnetocardiographic PR interval in normal and anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive pregnancies?
Case-Control (n=178)
No
Can fetal echocardiographic AV interval accurately predict magnetocardiographic PR interval in normal and anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive pregnancies?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.6% vs 20.4%
p-value: p=0.222
Echocardiographic AV interval is not predictive of fMCG-PR interval, and the diagnostic threshold for first-degree AV block defined by AV interval Z-score is gestational age-dependent.
Echocardiographic AV intervals exceed fMCG PR intervals without group-specific bias; leaves open echo's accuracy for detecting first-degree AV block in anti-Ro pregnancies.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were, first, to evaluate the association between fetal echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) and magnetocardiographic (fMCG) PR intervals at different gestational ages (GAs) in normal and anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive pregnancies; second, to determine if PR interval could be predicted by AV interval; and third, to assess the neonatal outcome of fetuses with prolonged AV and PR intervals, with the goal of developing criteria for fetal first-degree AV block (AVB-I). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive pregnancies (cases) and controls that underwent fMCG and fetal echocardiography at the same recording session. Cardiac cycle length, GA and AV (by mitral inflow/aortic outflow Doppler) and PR (by fMCG) intervals were measured. We tested for significant differences between AV and PR intervals using generalized estimating equations to account for repeat measurements, and assessed whether PR interval could be predicted reliably by AV interval. After delivery, infants with fetal AV or PR interval Z-score ≥ 3 underwent 12-lead electrocardiography. RESULTS: Thirty-nine controls and 31 cases underwent 46 and 36 simultaneous fMCG and echocardiographic examinations, respectively; 101 controls and nine cases underwent fMCG only. AV and PR intervals increased with GA (P < 0.05 for both). Overall, AV and PR intervals were significantly different from each other (P < 0.001); this difference was not significant when compared between cases and controls (P = 0.222). PR interval could not be predicted accurately from AV interval and GA alone. Three of four cases with AV and PR interval Z-scores > + 3 had postnatal AVB-I despite treatment. The fourth fetus, which had predominately second-degree AVB and rare periods of AVB-I, progressed to third-degree AVB despite treatment with dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic threshold for AVB-I, defined by AV interval Z-score, is GA dependent. Based on the observed data, an AV interval Z-score threshold of 3 (AV interval, 151-167 ms) may be appropriate. Echocardiographic AV interval was not predictive of fMCG-PR interval.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cuneo et al. (2019) conducted a case-control in Anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive pregnancy (n=178). Anti-Ro/SSA-antibody positivity vs. Normal pregnancies (anti-Ro/SSA negative) was evaluated on Mean difference between fetal echocardiographic atrioventricular (AV) and magnetocardiographic PR intervals (p=0.222). Echocardiographic AV intervals were significantly longer than magnetocardiographic PR intervals overall, but this difference did not vary significantly between anti-Ro/SSA-antibody-positive cases (23.6 ms) and controls (20.4 ms, P = 0.222).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: