Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Antenatal testing among 1001 patients at high risk: the role of ultrasonographic estimate of amniotic fluid volume.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare the accuracy of the amniotic fluid index and the 2-diameter pocket technique with respect to accuracy in predicting an adverse pregnancy outcome among patients at high risk undergoing antenatal testing.

STUDY DESIGN: All women with high-risk pregnancies and intact membranes who underwent antenatal testing during an 18-month period were prospectively enrolled. Ultrasonographic estimates of amniotic fluid volume were performed by means of the amniotic fluid index and the 2-diameter pocket technique. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals and receiver operator characteristic curves were calculated for patients with an ultrasonographic estimate of oligohydramnios (amniotic fluid index of 5 cm or 2-diameter pocket of >15 cm2). Outcome variables studied were intrapartum and neonatal complications.

RESULTS: Among 1001 patients the mean (+/-SD) amniotic fluid index was 10.5 +/- 5 cm and the mean (+/-SD) 2-diameter pocket was 18.7 +/- 13.6 cm2. Significantly more patients (46%) were considered to have oligohydramnios according to the 2-diameter pocket criteria than according to the amniotic fluid index (21%, P <.0001, relative risk 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5-1.8). No significant differences in the incidences of nonreactive nonstress test results, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, cesarean delivery for fetal distress, low Apgar scores, or infants with cord pH of <7.10 were observed between the oligohydramnios and normal amniotic fluid groups (P >.05) when assessed by relative risk with confidence interval and by receiver operator characteristic curves.

CONCLUSIONS: Current ultrasonographic measurements with the amniotic fluid index and the 2-diameter pocket technique are poor diagnostic tests to determine whether a patient is at high risk for an adverse perinatal outcome.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app