Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:19:09.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 4 - Fetal disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Edited by
Bidyut Kumar  and
Zarko Alfirevic
Bidyut Kumar
Affiliation:
Wrexham Maelor Hospital
Zarko Alfirevic
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Medicine , pp. 201 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

MacLean, A, Regan, L, Carrington, D (eds). Infection in Pregnancy. London: RCOG Press, 2001.Google ScholarPubMed
Townsend, CL, Forsgren, M, Ahlfors, K, et al. Long-term outcomes of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 1232–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraudon, I, Forde, J, Maguire, H, et al. Antenatal screening and prevalence of infection: surveillance in London, 2000–2007. Euro Surveill 2009; 14(9): 8–12.Google Scholar
Pembrey, L, Raynor, P, Griffiths, P, et al. Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr virus and varicella zoster virus among pregnant women in Bradford: a cohort study. PLoS One 2013; 8(11): e81881.Google Scholar
Flatt, A, Shetty, N. Seroprevalence and risk factors for toxoplasmosis among antenatal women in London: a re-examination of risk in an ethnically diverse population. Eur J Public Health 2013; 23: 648–52.Google Scholar
Halsby, K, Guy, E, Said, B, et al. Enhanced surveillance of toxoplasmosis in England and Wales, 2008–2012. Epidemiol Infect 2014; 142(8): 1653–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vyse, AJ, Andrews, NJ, Hesketh, LM, et al. The burden of parvovirus B19 infection in women of childbearing age in England and Wales. Epidemiol Infect 2007; 135: 1354–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wise, J. Small rise in rubella cases triggers warning. BMJ 2013; 346: f2935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Chickenpox in pregnancy. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 13. London: RCOG, September 2007.Google Scholar
Jacquemard, F, Yamamoto, M, Costa, M, et al.Maternal administration of valaciclovir in symptomatic intrauterine cytomegalovirus infection. BJOG 2007; 114: 1113–21.Google Scholar
Nigro, G, Adler, SP, La Torre, R, et al; Congenital Cytomegalovirus Collaborating Group. Passive immunization during pregnancy for congenital cytomegalovirus infection. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1350–62.Google Scholar
Bhide, A, Papageorghiou, AT. Managing primary CMV infection in pregnancy. BJOG 2008; 115: 805–7.Google Scholar
Dunn, D, Wallon, M, Peyron, F, et al. Mother-to-child transmission of toxoplasmosis: risk estimates for clinical counseling. Lancet 1999; 353(9167): 1829–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for disease Prevention and Control (CDC). Treatment guidelines: Sexually transmitted diseases. Atlanta: CDC, 2010.Google Scholar
Crino, JP.Ultrasound and fetal diagnosis of perinatal infection. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1999; 42: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wendel, GD Jr, Sheffield, JS, Hollier, LM, et al. Treatment of syphilis in pregnancy and prevention of congenital syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: S200–9.Google Scholar
Caddy, SC, Lee, BE, Sutherland, K, et al. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of women with reactive syphilis serology in Alberta, 2002 to 2006. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33: 453–9.Google Scholar

References

Vaughan, JI, Warwick, R, Welch, CR, et al. Anti-Kell in pregnancy (letter). Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 944–5.Google Scholar
Anonymous. Dangers of anti-Kell in pregnancy (editorial). Lancet 1991; 3376: 1319–20.Google Scholar
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). Prevention of RH Alloimmunization. RCOG Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 133. London: RCOG, September 2003.Google Scholar
Von Stein, GA, Munsick, RA, Stiver, K, et al. Fetomaternal haemorrhage in threatened abortion. Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 79: 383–6.Google Scholar
Blakemore, KJ, Baumgarten, A, Schoenfeld-Dimaio, M, et al. Rise in maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein concentration after chorionic villus sampling and the possibility of isoimmunisation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 988–93.Google Scholar
Bowman, JM. Controversies in Rh prophylaxis. Who needs Rh immune globulin and when should it be given? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 289–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Lau, TK, Stock, A, Rogers, M. Fetomaternal haemorrhage after external cephalic version at term. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 35: 173–4.Google Scholar
Tovey, LAD. Haemolytic disease of the newborn-the changing scene. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 960–6.Google Scholar
Mayne, KM, Bowell, PJ, Pratt, GA. The significance of anti-Kell sensitisation in pregnancy. Clin Lab Haematol 1990a; 12: 379–85.Google Scholar
Bowman, JM. Maternal blood group immunisation: Haemolytic disease (erythroblastosis fetalis). In: Creasy, RK, Resnik, R (eds). Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice, 4th edn. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1994; 711.Google Scholar
Chilcott, J, Lloyd Jones, M, Wight, J, et al. A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are Rhesus (RhD) negative. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2002.Google Scholar
Vaughan, JI, Warwick, R, Letsky, E, et al. Erythropoietic suppression in fetal anemia because of Kell alloimmunization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 247–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caine, ME, Mueller-Heubach, E. Kell sensitisation in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 85–90.Google Scholar
Leggat, HM, Gibson, JM, Barron, SL, et al. Anti-Kell in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 162–5.Google Scholar
Bowman, JM, Pollack, JM, Manning, FA, et al. Maternal Kell blood group alloimmunization. Obstet Gynecol 1992: 79: 239–44.Google ScholarPubMed
Vaughan, J, Manning, M, Warwick, R, et al. Inhibition of erythroid progenitor cells by anti-Kell antibodies in fetal alloimmune anemia. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 798–803.Google Scholar
Hackney, DN, Knudtson, EJ, Rossi, KQ, et al. Management of pregnancies complicated by anti-c isoimmunization. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 24–30.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Technical Bulletin. Management of isoimmunisation in pregnancy. Int J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 55: 183–90.Google Scholar
Queenan, JT, ed. Rh and other blood group immunizations. In: Management of High-Risk Pregnancies, 4th edn. Maldan (MA): Blackwell Science, 1999; 399–412.Google Scholar
Sponge, CY, Porter, AE, Queenan, JT. Management of isoimmunization in the presence of multiple maternal antibodies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 481–4.Google Scholar
Babinszki, A, Berkowitz, RL. Haemolytic disease of the newborn caused by anti-c, anti-E and anti-Fya antibodies: report of five cases. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 533–6.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative women. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 41, May 2002.Google Scholar
National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for women who are rhesus D negative. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance (TA156), August 27, 2008 (nice.org.uk/guidance/ta156).Google Scholar
Pollack, W, Ascari, WQ, Kochesky, RJ, et al. Studies on Rh prophylaxis. 1. Relationship between doses of anti-Rh and size of antigenic stimulus. Transfusion 1971; 11: 333–9.Google Scholar
Freda, VJ, Gorman, JG, Pollack, W, et al. Prevention of Rh haemolytic disease-ten years’ clinical experience with Rh immune globulin. N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 1014–6.Google Scholar
Qureshi, H, Massey, E, Kirwan, D, et al. BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med 2014; 24: 8–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schefferr, PG, van der Schoot, CE, Page-Christiaens, GC, et al. Noninvasive fetal blood group genotyping of rhesus D, c, E and of K in alloimmunised pregnant women: evaluation of a 7-year clinical experience. BJOG 2011; 118(11): 1340–8.Google Scholar
Hromandnikova, I, Vesela, K, Benesova, B, et al. Non-invasive fetal RHD and RHCE genotyping from maternal plasma in alloimmunized pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25: 1079–83.Google Scholar
Geifman-Holtzman, O, Grotegut, CA, Gaughan, CA, et al. Non-invasive fetal RhCE genotyping from maternal blood. BJOG 2009; 116(2): 144–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutensohn, K, Muller, SP, Thomann, K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive polymerase chain reaction testing for the determination of fetal rhesus C, c and E status in early pregnancy. BJOG 2010; 117(6): 722–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illanes, S, Soothill, P. Management of red cell alloimmunisation in pregnancy: the non-invasive monitoring of the disease. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30: 668–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voak, D, Mitchell, R, Bowell, P, et al. Guidelines for blood grouping and red cell antibody testing during pregnancy. Transfus Med 1996; 6: 71–4.Google Scholar
Urbaniak, SJ, Greiss, MA. RhD haemolytic disease of the fetus and the newborn. 2000; 14: 44–61.Google Scholar
Bruce, M, Chapman, JF, Duguid, J, et al. Addendum for guidelines for blood grouping and red cell antibody testing during pregnancy. Transfus Med 1999; 9: 99.Google Scholar
Clark, AC. Red cell antibodies in pregnancy: evidence overturned. Lancet 1996; 347: 485–6.Google Scholar
Whitecar, PW, Moise, KJ Jr. Sonographic methods to detect fetal anaemia in red blood cell alloimmunization. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000; 55: 240–50.Google Scholar
Mari, G, Deter, RL, Carpenter, RL, et al. Non-invasive diagnosis by Doppler ultrasonography of fetal anaemia due to maternal red-cell alloimmunization. N Engl J Med 2000; 342(1): 9–14.Google Scholar
ISUOG Practice Guidelines: use of Doppler ultrasonography in Obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 233–9.Google Scholar
Liley, AW. Liquor amnii analysis in the management of the pregnancy complicated by Rhesus sensitisation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961; 82: 1359–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, CR, Lappin, TRJ, Carson, M. Further development and experience in an action line method for the management of Rhesus isoimmunisation. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth 1970; 77: 791–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaides, KH, Clewell, WH, Rodeck, CH. Measurement of human fetoplacetal blood volume in erythroblastosis fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 50–3.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, KH, Soothill, PW, Rodeck, CH, et al. Rh disease: Intravascular fetal blood transfusion by cordocentesis. Fetal Therapy 1986; 1: 185–92.Google Scholar
Rodeck, CH, Deans, A. Red cell alloimmunisation. In: Charles H Rodeck, Martin J Whittle (eds). Fetal Medicine: Basic Science and Clinical Practice. Churchill Livingstone, 2001; 785–802.Google Scholar
Moise, KJ Jr. Haemolytic Disease of the fetus and newborn. In: Creasy, RK, Resnik, R (eds). Maternal-Fetal medicine. Pennsylvania: Saunders, 2004; 537–61.Google Scholar
Ruma, MS, Moise, KJ Jr, Kim, E, et al. Combined plasmapheresis and intravenous immune globulin for the treatment of severe maternal red cell alloimmunization. AJOG 2007; 196(2): 138.e1–6.Google Scholar
Voto, LS, Mathet, ER, Zapaterio, JL, et al. High-dose gammaglobulin (IVIG) followed by intrauterine transfusions (IUTs): a new alternative for the treatment of severe fetal hemolytic disease. J Perinat Med 1997; 25(1): 85–8.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The management of women with red cell antibodies during pregnancy. Green-Top Guideline No. 65, May 2014.Google Scholar

References

Williamson, LM, Hackett, G, Rennie, J, et al. The natural history of fetomaternal alloimmunization to the paltelet-specific antigen PA-1a (PIA1, Zwa) as determined by antenatal screening. Blood 1998; 92: 2280–7.Google Scholar
Serrarens-Janssen, v M, Steegers, EA, van den Bos, A, et al. Experiences with fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia in the Netherlands over a 2-year period. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2005; 84: 203.Google Scholar
Knight, M, Pierce, M, Allen, D, et al. The incidence and outcome of fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia: a UK national study using three data sources. Br J Haematol 2011; 152: 460–8.Google Scholar
Vandenbussche, FPHA, Brand, A, Kanhai, HHH. Fetal thrombocytopenia. In: High Risk Pregnancy – Management Options. James, D, Steer, P, Weiner, C, et al. (eds). Elsevier Saunders, 2011; 229–37.Google Scholar
Radder, CM, Brand, A, Kanhai, HHH. Will it ever be possible to balance the risk of intrasranial haemorrhage in fetal or neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia against the risk of treatment strategies to prevent it? Vox Sang 2003; 84; 318–25.Google Scholar
Scheffer, P, Ait Soussan, A, Verhagen, O, et al. Noninvasive fetal genotyping of human platelet antigen-1a. BJOG, 2011; 118: 1392–5.Google Scholar
van den Akker, E, Oepkes, D, Lopriore, E, et al. Noninvasive antenatal management of fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia: safe and effective. BJOG 2007; 114: 469–73.Google Scholar
UK Department of Health. Clinical Guidelines for Immunoglobulin Use, 2nd edn, July 2011.Google Scholar
Rayment, R, Brunskill, SJ, Stanworth, S, et al. Antenatal interventions for fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (1): CD004226. Update in Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (5): CD004226.Google Scholar
van den Akker, E, Oepkes, D, Brand, A, et al. Vaginal delivery for fetuses at risk of alloimmune thrombocytopenia? BJOG 2006; 113: 781–3.Google Scholar

References

Moore, KL, Persaud, TVN. The Developing Human: Clinically Orientated Embryology, 8th edn. Elsevier, 2008.Google Scholar
Rubin, P, Ramsay, M. Prescribing in Pregnancy, 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.Google Scholar
Little, BB. Introduction to drugs in pregnancy. Chapter 1: Drugs and Pregnancy: A Handbook. CRC Press, 2006.Google Scholar
UK National Teratology Information Service (UKTIS). www.toxbase.orgGoogle Scholar
Kaneko, S, Otani, k, Fukushima, Y, et al. Teratogenicity of antiepileptic drugs: Analysis of possible risk factors. Epilepsia 1988; 29: 459–67.Google Scholar
Safety of levatiracetam in pregnancy. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012;> 94(5): 407.+94(5):+407.>Google Scholar
Myers, B, Westby, J, Strong, J. Prophylactic use of danaparoid in high-risk pregnancy with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia positive skin reaction. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2003; 14; 485–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, WS, Anand, S, Ginsberg, JS. Anticoagulation of pregnant women with mechanical heart valves. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 191–6.Google Scholar
Park-Wyllie, L, Mazzotta, P, Pastuszak, A, et al. Birth defects after maternal exposure to corticosteroids: prospective cohort study and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Teratology 2000; 62: 385–92.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Preterm prelabor rupture of membranes. RCOG Green Top Guideline No, 44. London: ROCG, 2010.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Caesarean section. NICE Clinical Guideline CG132, November 2011 (last modified August 2012).Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Management of HIV in pregnancy. RCOG Green top Guideline No. 39. London: ROCG, 2010.Google Scholar
Jewell, D, Young, G. Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (9): CD000145.Google Scholar
Magee, LA, Mazzotta, P, Koren, G. Evidence-based view of safety and effectiveness of pharmacologic therapy for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002: 186 (5 Suppl. Understanding); S256–61.Google Scholar
Tan, PC. Metoclopramide during pregnancy did not increase risk for major congenital malformations or fetal death. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160(94): JC 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasternak, B, Svanstrom, H, Hviid, A. Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes. N Engl J Med 2013; 368(9): 814–23.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Hypertension in pregnancy. NICE Clinical Guideline CG107, August 2010 (last modified January 2011).Google Scholar
Lunell, NO, Hjemdahl, P, Fredholm, BB, et al. Acute effects of labetolol on maternal metabolism and uteroplacental circulation in hypertension of pregnancy. In: Riley, A, Symonds, EM (eds). The Investigation of Labetolol in the Management of Hypertension in Pregnancy. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Excerpta Medica, 1982; 34–45.Google Scholar
Briggs, GG, freeman, RK, Yaffe, SJ. A Reference Guide to Fetal and Neonatal Risk: Drugs in pregnancy and lactation, 9th edn. Lippincot Williams and Wilkins; 2011: 928.Google Scholar
Svirsky, R, et al. The safety of conception occurring shortly after methotrexate treatment of an ectopic pregnancy. Reprod Toxicol 2009; 27(91): 85–7.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Pregnancy and breast cancer. RCOG Green Top Guideline No. 12. London: ROCG, 2011.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Diabetes in pregnancy. NICE Clinical Guideline CG63, March 2008.Google Scholar
Burrow, GN, Bartsocas, C, Klatskin, EH, et al. Children exposed in utero to propylthiouracil. Am J Dis Child 1968; 116: 161–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baum, AL, Misri, S. Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors in pregnancy and lactation. Harv Rev Psychiatry 1996; 4(3): 117–25.Google Scholar
Chi, CC, Lee, CW, Wojnarowska, F, et al. Safety of topical corticosteroids in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (3): CD007346.Google Scholar
Demirel, G, et al. Unilateral renal agenesis and urethral atresia associated with ergotamine intake during pregnancy. Renal fail 2012; 34(5): 643–4.Google Scholar
Anonymous. Misoprostol and pregnancy: risk of malformations. Prescrire Int 2008; 17(94): 64–6.Google Scholar
Gallo, M, Sarkar, M, Au, W, et al. Pregnancy outcome following gestational exposure to echinacea: a prospective controlled study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160(20): 3141–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Public Health England. Protection of Pregnant Patients during Diagnostic Medical Exposures to Ionising Radiation (RCE-9). Radiation: HPA-RCE report series, March 2009.Google Scholar
Koch, D, Drugan, A. Exposure to ionizing radiation during pregnancy. In: Evans MI, et al. (eds). Prenatal Diagnosis. McGraw Hill, 2006.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×