# Diagnostic Value of Prenatal Ultrasound Parameters and Esophageal Signs in Pouch and Lower Thoracic Segment in Fetuses with Esophageal Atresia

Authors: Wenjun Feng
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

In order to investigate the diagnostic value of prenatal ultrasound parameters and signs of pouch and lower thoracic esophagus in the fetus with esophageal atresia (EA), the prenatal ultrasound data of 35 EA fetuses (observation group) confirmed by autopsy after induced labor or postnatal surgery and imaging examination in our hospital from May 2019 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and compared with 35 normal postnatal fetuses (control group). General information and prenatal ultrasound parameters of the two groups, including head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), double parietal diameter (BPD), fetal body weight (EFW), and signs (small or unmanifested gastric vesicles, amniotic fluid, neck or upper chest pouch, lower chest esophagus not visible), were analyzed using logistic regression. The logistic multifactor regression model for EA diagnosis was established, and the diagnostic value for EA was analyzed. As a result, the HC, AC, and EFW of the observation group were lower than those of the control group, the gastric bubbles were small or not displayed, the amniotic fluid was more, and the signs of neck or upper chest pouch and lower chest esophagus were not visible in the observation group (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that decreased ultrasound parameters HC, AC, EFW, small or no gastric bubble, amniotic fluid, neck or upper chest pouch, and no visible signs of lower chest esophagus were all risk factors for EA (P<0.05). And in the prenatal ultrasound diagnostic model of EA was established, logistic P=−19.851+HC×0.384+AC×0.682+EFW×0.695+smallornogastricvesicle×3.747+amnioticfluid×3.607+cervicalorupperchestsac×4.104+invisiblelowerthoracicesophagus×4.623.When logistic P>0.468, AUC was 0.891, χ2 was 7.764, diagnostic sensitivity was 91.24%, and specificity was 79.22%. To draw a conclusion, prenatal ultrasound parameters and signs are of great value in the diagnosis of EA. Independent influencing factors of EA include small or no HC, AC, EFW and gastric vesicles, polyhydramnios, neck or upper chest pouch, and invisible lower thoracic esophagus. Logistic multifactor regression model has a high coincidence rate for the prenatal diagnosis of EA, providing a basis for clinical decision-making.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Esophageal atresia (EA) is the most common esophageal malformation in the fetus, accompanied by high neonatal mortality [1, 2]. At present, the pathophysiological mechanism of EA is still unclear. The treatment of neonatal EA is mainly through surgery, which have become increasingly mature with unsatisfying prognosis [3, 4]. Therefore, a clear prenatal diagnosis of EA is crucial to the outcome and prognosis of children. Ultrasound is currently the preferred imaging method for EA prenatal diagnosis. In the past, due to the difficulty in distinguishing fetal esophageal echo from surrounding tissues, indirect signs such as small or unmanifested gastric vesicles and more amniotic fluid were mainly used for diagnosis, resulting in a low diagnosis rate [5, 6]. Pouch symptom is a direct sign of prenatal EA diagnosis, and functional observation of esophageal pouch by postprocessing ultrasound imaging technology can provide more information for prenatal EA diagnosis [7]. In recent years, with the improvement of ultrasound resolution, it has become possible to display fetal esophagus by ultrasound, providing a new idea for the prenatal diagnosis of EA [8]. However, there are few clinical reports on whether ultrasound parameters combined with pouch and lower thoracic esophageal signs can further improve the prenatal diagnosis rate of EA. Based on this, this study attempted to find relevant factors from prenatal ultrasound parameters and signs of sac and lower thoracic esophagus, establishing a logistic multifactor regression model for prenatal diagnosis of EA and providing reference for prenatal diagnosis of EA.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Subjects

The prenatal ultrasound data of 35 EA fetuses (observation group) in our hospital from May 2019 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and compared with 35 normal postnatal fetuses (control group). Inclusion criteria are as follows: ① all the pregnant women in the observation group were healthy, and ② all the fetuses were confirmed to be single by autopsy after induced labor or postbirth surgery and imaging examination (X-ray or CT). Exclusion criteria are as follows: ① pregnancy complications; ② chromosome karyotype analysis was abnormal in amniocentesis; ③ suspected structural abnormalities in the neck; and ④ chest and upper digestive tract.


### 2.2. Instruments

Instruments are as follows: color Doppler ultrasound system (UGEO WS80A, Samsung, Korea), transabdominal convex array probe (3.5 ~ 5.0 MHz), color Doppler ultrasound system (Voluson E8, GE Company, USA), and transabdominal convex array probe (3.5 ~ 5.0 MHz).


### 2.3. Focus on Observation Structure and Scanning Method

Routine fetal ultrasound was performed, followed by an area of interest scan [9]. ① For Magenblase, the probe transects the abdomen of the fetus, and the gastric bubble was dynamically observed. The gastric bubble is located in the left abdominal cavity, and the size of the gastric bubble changes with the swallowing and empties of the fetus. The gastric vesicles were observed on the sagittal plane of the left diaphragm (parallel to the spine), located in the abdominal cavity and below the vocal cords in the lower gyrus of the diaphragm. The gastric bubble size was more than two times standard deviation from the normal value of the same gestational age of the normal fetus, and the gastric bubble size had no significant change in the interval of 1 h. The gastric vesicles were observed for three consecutive times at an interval of 1 h. ② For Hydramnion, amniotic fluid volume (AFV) is more than 8 cm. Amniotic fluid index (AFI) is more than 25 cm. ③ Fr pouch sign, repeatedly scan the sagittal or coronal plane of the neck or mediastinum to observe whether there is anechoic or variable anechoic area. In anechoic or variable anechoic area, we may find a pouch-like structure. Observation was performed for 3 times, 5 min at an interval of 0.5 h. If no pouch was displayed, it will be noted as no “pouch” was displayed. ④ For lower thoracic esophagus, sagittal view was taken to show the section of the aortic arch. The image was enlarged moderately, and the lower thoracic esophagus was observed in front of the thoracic aorta and behind the left atrium, showing 2, 3, or 4 bright lines with high echo.


### 2.4. Ultrasonic Parameter Measurement

Scan the fetus and its appendages according to the standardized cross-section proposed by International Society Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) [9]. Head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and biparietal diameter (BPD) were measured. The estimated fetal weight EFW=0.3×AC2×femurlength (FL).


### 2.5. Observation Indicators

Observation indicators are as follows: ① general information: age, gestational age, body mass index, pregnancy status, parity, pregnancy history of malformed fetus, infection during pregnancy, and placental thickness; ② ultrasonic measurement parameters: HC, AC, BPD, and EFW; ③ analysis of the influencing factors of EA; ④ establishment and analysis of logistic multifactor regression model for EA diagnosis; and ⑤ the diagnostic value of logistic multifactor regression model for EA.


### 2.6. Statistical Analyses

SPSS22.0 was used to process the data. Bartlett test and Shapiro-Wilke test were used to process the measurement data, which were all confirmed to have homogeneity of variance and approximately follow normal distribution and is described as (±s). Comparison between the two groups was performed by independent sample t-test. Enumeration data were expressed by n (%) and analyzed by χ2 test. The influencing factors were analyzed by logistic regression. For diagnostic value analysis, the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was adopted to obtain AUC, confidence interval, sensitivity, and specificity. The joint prediction was performed by logistic binary regression fitting and the logistic regression (P) which were used as an independent test variable. Bilateral test was used for all, α=0.05.


## 2.1. Subjects

The prenatal ultrasound data of 35 EA fetuses (observation group) in our hospital from May 2019 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and compared with 35 normal postnatal fetuses (control group). Inclusion criteria are as follows: ① all the pregnant women in the observation group were healthy, and ② all the fetuses were confirmed to be single by autopsy after induced labor or postbirth surgery and imaging examination (X-ray or CT). Exclusion criteria are as follows: ① pregnancy complications; ② chromosome karyotype analysis was abnormal in amniocentesis; ③ suspected structural abnormalities in the neck; and ④ chest and upper digestive tract.


## 2.2. Instruments

Instruments are as follows: color Doppler ultrasound system (UGEO WS80A, Samsung, Korea), transabdominal convex array probe (3.5 ~ 5.0 MHz), color Doppler ultrasound system (Voluson E8, GE Company, USA), and transabdominal convex array probe (3.5 ~ 5.0 MHz).


## 2.3. Focus on Observation Structure and Scanning Method

Routine fetal ultrasound was performed, followed by an area of interest scan [9]. ① For Magenblase, the probe transects the abdomen of the fetus, and the gastric bubble was dynamically observed. The gastric bubble is located in the left abdominal cavity, and the size of the gastric bubble changes with the swallowing and empties of the fetus. The gastric vesicles were observed on the sagittal plane of the left diaphragm (parallel to the spine), located in the abdominal cavity and below the vocal cords in the lower gyrus of the diaphragm. The gastric bubble size was more than two times standard deviation from the normal value of the same gestational age of the normal fetus, and the gastric bubble size had no significant change in the interval of 1 h. The gastric vesicles were observed for three consecutive times at an interval of 1 h. ② For Hydramnion, amniotic fluid volume (AFV) is more than 8 cm. Amniotic fluid index (AFI) is more than 25 cm. ③ Fr pouch sign, repeatedly scan the sagittal or coronal plane of the neck or mediastinum to observe whether there is anechoic or variable anechoic area. In anechoic or variable anechoic area, we may find a pouch-like structure. Observation was performed for 3 times, 5 min at an interval of 0.5 h. If no pouch was displayed, it will be noted as no “pouch” was displayed. ④ For lower thoracic esophagus, sagittal view was taken to show the section of the aortic arch. The image was enlarged moderately, and the lower thoracic esophagus was observed in front of the thoracic aorta and behind the left atrium, showing 2, 3, or 4 bright lines with high echo.


## 2.4. Ultrasonic Parameter Measurement

Scan the fetus and its appendages according to the standardized cross-section proposed by International Society Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) [9]. Head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and biparietal diameter (BPD) were measured. The estimated fetal weight EFW=0.3×AC2×femurlength (FL).


## 2.5. Observation Indicators

Observation indicators are as follows: ① general information: age, gestational age, body mass index, pregnancy status, parity, pregnancy history of malformed fetus, infection during pregnancy, and placental thickness; ② ultrasonic measurement parameters: HC, AC, BPD, and EFW; ③ analysis of the influencing factors of EA; ④ establishment and analysis of logistic multifactor regression model for EA diagnosis; and ⑤ the diagnostic value of logistic multifactor regression model for EA.


## 2.6. Statistical Analyses

SPSS22.0 was used to process the data. Bartlett test and Shapiro-Wilke test were used to process the measurement data, which were all confirmed to have homogeneity of variance and approximately follow normal distribution and is described as (±s). Comparison between the two groups was performed by independent sample t-test. Enumeration data were expressed by n (%) and analyzed by χ2 test. The influencing factors were analyzed by logistic regression. For diagnostic value analysis, the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was adopted to obtain AUC, confidence interval, sensitivity, and specificity. The joint prediction was performed by logistic binary regression fitting and the logistic regression (P) which were used as an independent test variable. Bilateral test was used for all, α=0.05.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. General Information

As shown in Table1, there were no significant differences in age, gestational age, body mass index, pregnancy status, birth rate, pregnancy history of malformed fetus, infection during pregnancy, and placental thickness between the two groups (P>0.05). The baseline of the two groups of patients was consistent. Therefore, the observation indicators of the two groups of patients can be compared.Table 1
Comparison of general information.
IndicatorsObservation group (n=35)Control group (n=35)t/χ2PMaternal age (years)33.36±5.9431.87±5.421.0960.277Gestation (weeks)31.76±2.3830.94±2.251.4810.143Body mass index (kg/m2)23.18±2.0922.94±1.760.5200.605Pregnancy condition (n (%))First pregnancy23 (65.71)26 (74.29)0.6120.434Multiple pregnancy12 (34.29)9 (25.71)Parity (n (%))Primiparity28 (80.00)30 (85.71)0.4020.526Multiparity7 (20.00)5 (14.29)Pregnancy history of malformed fetus (n (%))1 (2.86)0 (0.00)—1.000Pregnant infection (n (%))4 (11.43)1 (2.86)0.8620.353


### 3.2. Prenatal Ultrasound Parameters and Symptoms

The HC, AC, and EFW of the observation group were lower than those of the control group. The gastric vesicles were small or unmanifested, the amniotic fluid was more, and the signs of neck or upper chest sac and lower chest esophagus were not visible in the observation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences BPD (P>0.05). The data is shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of general data, prenatal ultrasound parameters, and signs.
IndicatorsObservation group (n=35)Control group (n=35)t/χ2PUltrasound parametersHC (cm)26.59±1.5827.68±1.243.2110.002AC (cm)23.36±2.0426.81±1.957.232<0.001BPD (cm)7.08±0.517.24±0.531.2870.203EFW (g)1241.59±157.831528.64±185.326.976<0.001Placental thickness (cm)2.53±0.392.66±0.411.3590.179Ultrasonic sign (n (%))Small or unmanifested gastric vesicles33 (94.29)0 (0.00)62.432<0.001Polyhydramnios27 (77.14)9 (25.71)18.529<0.001Neck or upper chest pouch28 (80.00)0 (0.00)46.667<0.001Invisible lower thoracic esophagus35 (100.00)4 (11.43)55.641<0.001


### 3.3. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of EA

EA was taken as the dependent variable, the items with statistically significant differences in Table2 were taken as independent variables, and multivariate logistic regression equation analysis was applied (the assigned values are shown in Table 3). It was shown that the reduction of ultrasound parameters HC, AC, and EFW, the presence of small or unmanifested gastric vesicles, more amniotic fluid, no visible signs of neck or upper chest pouch, and lower chest esophagus were all risk factors for EA (P<0.05) (Table 4).Table 3
Assignment chart.
VariablesAssignmentDependent variableEANo=0, yes=1Independent variablesHC<mean=1, ≥mean=2AC<mean=1, ≥mean=2EFW<mean=1, ≥mean=2Small or unmanifested gastric vesiclesNo=0, yes=1PolyhydramniosNo=0, yes=1Neck or upper chest pouchNo=0, yes=1Invisible lower thoracic esophagusNo=0, yes=1Table 4
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of EA.
FactorsβS.E.Waldχ2POR95% CIHC-0.9560.3766.464<0.0010.3840.216-0.684AC-0.3820.1496.626<0.0010.6820.193-0.725EFW-0.3640.1625.0490.0050.6950.264-0.708Small or unmanifested gastric vesicles1.3210.36912.816<0.0013.7472.047-6.853Polyhydramnios1.2830.5725.0310.0113.6071.936-6.719Neck or upper chest pouch1.4120.5536.520<0.0014.1042.292-7.351Invisible lower thoracic esophagus1.5310.39814.797<0.0014.6232.855-7.483


### 3.4. Establishment and Analysis of Logistic Multifactor Regression Model for EA Diagnosis

The above risk factors were included in the logistic regression analysis, and a regression equation model was established according to the variable regression coefficient table. The logistic regression equation was as follows:logisticP=−19.851+HC×0.384+AC×0.682+EFW×0.695+smallornogastricvesicle×3.747+amnioticfluid×3.607+cervicalorupperchestsac×4.104+invisiblelowerthoracicesophagus×4.623. The likelihood ratio chi-square=128.367, DF=7, and P<0.001; that is, the establishment of the model has statistical significance. Wald Chi-square=135.490, DF=8, and P<0.001; that is, the coefficient difference of regression equation is statistically significant, suggesting that the construction of logistic multifactor regression diagnostic model is effective. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test demonstrated that the model had a good fitting effect, chi−square=5.364, DF=5, and P=0.719.


### 3.5. The Diagnostic Value of Logistic Multifactor Regression Model for EA

The diagnostic probability P of EA was obtained using logistic regression model. ROC curve was drawn according to the diagnostic value and true value. When logisticP>0.468, AUC was 0.891, 95% CI was 0.743-0.923, χ2 was 7.764, diagnostic sensitivity was 91.24%, and specificity was 79.22%, as shown in Figure 1.Figure 1
ROC curve based on AE multivariate logistic regression analysis.


## 3.1. General Information

As shown in Table1, there were no significant differences in age, gestational age, body mass index, pregnancy status, birth rate, pregnancy history of malformed fetus, infection during pregnancy, and placental thickness between the two groups (P>0.05). The baseline of the two groups of patients was consistent. Therefore, the observation indicators of the two groups of patients can be compared.Table 1
Comparison of general information.
IndicatorsObservation group (n=35)Control group (n=35)t/χ2PMaternal age (years)33.36±5.9431.87±5.421.0960.277Gestation (weeks)31.76±2.3830.94±2.251.4810.143Body mass index (kg/m2)23.18±2.0922.94±1.760.5200.605Pregnancy condition (n (%))First pregnancy23 (65.71)26 (74.29)0.6120.434Multiple pregnancy12 (34.29)9 (25.71)Parity (n (%))Primiparity28 (80.00)30 (85.71)0.4020.526Multiparity7 (20.00)5 (14.29)Pregnancy history of malformed fetus (n (%))1 (2.86)0 (0.00)—1.000Pregnant infection (n (%))4 (11.43)1 (2.86)0.8620.353


## 3.2. Prenatal Ultrasound Parameters and Symptoms

The HC, AC, and EFW of the observation group were lower than those of the control group. The gastric vesicles were small or unmanifested, the amniotic fluid was more, and the signs of neck or upper chest sac and lower chest esophagus were not visible in the observation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences BPD (P>0.05). The data is shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of general data, prenatal ultrasound parameters, and signs.
IndicatorsObservation group (n=35)Control group (n=35)t/χ2PUltrasound parametersHC (cm)26.59±1.5827.68±1.243.2110.002AC (cm)23.36±2.0426.81±1.957.232<0.001BPD (cm)7.08±0.517.24±0.531.2870.203EFW (g)1241.59±157.831528.64±185.326.976<0.001Placental thickness (cm)2.53±0.392.66±0.411.3590.179Ultrasonic sign (n (%))Small or unmanifested gastric vesicles33 (94.29)0 (0.00)62.432<0.001Polyhydramnios27 (77.14)9 (25.71)18.529<0.001Neck or upper chest pouch28 (80.00)0 (0.00)46.667<0.001Invisible lower thoracic esophagus35 (100.00)4 (11.43)55.641<0.001


## 3.3. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of EA

EA was taken as the dependent variable, the items with statistically significant differences in Table2 were taken as independent variables, and multivariate logistic regression equation analysis was applied (the assigned values are shown in Table 3). It was shown that the reduction of ultrasound parameters HC, AC, and EFW, the presence of small or unmanifested gastric vesicles, more amniotic fluid, no visible signs of neck or upper chest pouch, and lower chest esophagus were all risk factors for EA (P<0.05) (Table 4).Table 3
Assignment chart.
VariablesAssignmentDependent variableEANo=0, yes=1Independent variablesHC<mean=1, ≥mean=2AC<mean=1, ≥mean=2EFW<mean=1, ≥mean=2Small or unmanifested gastric vesiclesNo=0, yes=1PolyhydramniosNo=0, yes=1Neck or upper chest pouchNo=0, yes=1Invisible lower thoracic esophagusNo=0, yes=1Table 4
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of EA.
FactorsβS.E.Waldχ2POR95% CIHC-0.9560.3766.464<0.0010.3840.216-0.684AC-0.3820.1496.626<0.0010.6820.193-0.725EFW-0.3640.1625.0490.0050.6950.264-0.708Small or unmanifested gastric vesicles1.3210.36912.816<0.0013.7472.047-6.853Polyhydramnios1.2830.5725.0310.0113.6071.936-6.719Neck or upper chest pouch1.4120.5536.520<0.0014.1042.292-7.351Invisible lower thoracic esophagus1.5310.39814.797<0.0014.6232.855-7.483


## 3.4. Establishment and Analysis of Logistic Multifactor Regression Model for EA Diagnosis

The above risk factors were included in the logistic regression analysis, and a regression equation model was established according to the variable regression coefficient table. The logistic regression equation was as follows:logisticP=−19.851+HC×0.384+AC×0.682+EFW×0.695+smallornogastricvesicle×3.747+amnioticfluid×3.607+cervicalorupperchestsac×4.104+invisiblelowerthoracicesophagus×4.623. The likelihood ratio chi-square=128.367, DF=7, and P<0.001; that is, the establishment of the model has statistical significance. Wald Chi-square=135.490, DF=8, and P<0.001; that is, the coefficient difference of regression equation is statistically significant, suggesting that the construction of logistic multifactor regression diagnostic model is effective. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test demonstrated that the model had a good fitting effect, chi−square=5.364, DF=5, and P=0.719.


## 3.5. The Diagnostic Value of Logistic Multifactor Regression Model for EA

The diagnostic probability P of EA was obtained using logistic regression model. ROC curve was drawn according to the diagnostic value and true value. When logisticP>0.468, AUC was 0.891, 95% CI was 0.743-0.923, χ2 was 7.764, diagnostic sensitivity was 91.24%, and specificity was 79.22%, as shown in Figure 1.Figure 1
ROC curve based on AE multivariate logistic regression analysis.


## 4. Discussion

EA is a relatively common congenital malformation of digestive system, and its incidence ranks third in developmental malformation of digestive system, next only to anorectal malformation and congenital megacolon [10]. The specific etiology of EA is unknown, which may be related to a variety of factors such as genetics and environment [11]. At present, it is difficult to make prenatal diagnosis of EA. It was reported that only about 1/3 of EA cases were diagnosed before delivery [12]. In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used in the prenatal diagnosis of EA. Although it has advantages such as high soft tissue resolution, wide scanning field, and multidirectional and multiparameter imaging, it is expensive and complicated to operate. There is no evidence that MRI can be independently used for prenatal diagnosis of EA [13]. Ultrasound, as a routine method for prenatal screening of EA, has the advantages of simple operation and low cost. Previous diagnosis mainly relies on two nonspecific imaging markers: small or unmanifested gastric vesicles and excessive amniotic fluid [14]. However, small or unmanifested gastric vesicles are associated with a variety of fetal abnormalities, such as neuromuscular syndrome, upper digestive tract and respiratory tract abnormalities, chromosomal abnormalities, and central nervous system abnormalities [15]. EA fetuses have atresia and deficiency of digestive tract to varying degrees and are unable to swallow and absorb nutrients in amniotic fluid, while their urinary and excretion functions are normal, and the amount of amniotic fluid can increase gradually, leading to polyhydramnios [16]. Excessive amniotic fluid found via prenatal ultrasound is probably a symbol of abnormalities that include impaired swallowing function, digestive tract or respiratory tract obstruction, chromosomal abnormalities, etc. [17]. Therefore, the diagnosis of EA with small or unmanifested gastric vesicles and more amniotic fluid still lacks specificity.It was pointed out that the detection of neck or upper chest sac in fetal ultrasound examination at about 32 weeks of gestation is a relatively reliable sign for the diagnosis of fetal EA [18]. The sac is a proximal closed blind end of the esophagus, which is manifested as cystic echo area (variable size) in the neck or upper chest. When the fetus swallows, amniotic fluid fills up, and the sac becomes larger and becomes smaller or disappears as the amniotic fluid flows back out [19]. Fetal swallowing is irregular, so it takes a long time to observe pouch signs. In this study, 3 consecutive observations were made with 5 min observation at an interval of 0.5 h each time. Among 35 EA cases, 33 cases were confirmed to have pouch signs after delivery or induced labor, and 28 of them were observed before delivery, with a total presentation rate of 84.85% (28/33). EA is divided into 5 types, of which type III has the highest incidence, accounting for 85-90%, followed by type I, accounting for 4-8% [20]. In type III EA, the proximal esophagus is the blind end, with thickened wall and dilated lumen to form a pouch. Tracheoesophageal fistula is formed between the distal esophagus and trachea, and the distal esophagus is often dysplasia with thin wall and thin lumen [21]. Type I EA is characterized by atresia of both the proximal and distal esophagus with a long distance between broken ends, and the proximal esophagus may also form a pouch, while the distal blind end of the esophagus is mostly located above the diaphragm level and often accompanied by dysplasia [22]. The esophagus is a hollow pipe connecting pharynx and stomach and an important part of the digestive system. The lower thoracic esophagus is located at the level of trachea bifurcation to the horizontal position of diaphragm. Based on the characteristics of type III and type I EA above, it is of great significance for EA diagnosis and elimination diagnosis [23]. In the past, due to the difficulty in displaying fetal esophagus, the lower thoracic esophagus was not used as the structure of fetal EA prenatal ultrasound screening. In recent years, with the development of ultrasound technology, it has been used to display fetal esophagus, providing new ultrasonic signs for the prenatal diagnosis of EA. This study showed that the lower thoracic esophagus was invisible in 35 observation group cases, providing a more direct and effective basis for prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of EA. At present, few studies have incorporated lower thoracic esophageal invisibility into EA multifactor logistic regression model. This study showed that its OR value was 4.623, indicating that the risk of sign invisibility increased 3.622 times when other independent variables remain unchanged, which is a good indicator for EA diagnosis.EA gastric bubble collapse can cause fetal growth and dysplasia. It was reported that in middle and late pregnancy, protein intake of EA fetus is reduced by 2 g/d compared with normal fetus [24]. Here, our research proved that HC, AC, and EFW of EA fetuses were lower than those of normal fetuses, indirectly supporting this view. However, there was no significant difference in BPD between EA fetus and normal fetus. The underlying reason was proposed that fetal head shape could be round, square, and oval, and there were objective differences in standardized section measurement of BPD, coupled with sound shadow attenuation and pelvic tissue interference when fetal head position was low [25–27]. Therefore, there was no practical clinical significance in analyzing BPD. The placental thickness of EA fetus in late trimester is thin, which is believed to be related to the nutritional overabsorption of placenta [28, 29]. However, our results are different from the above results, which may be caused by the abundant maternal support and the development of placental superiority.In this study, ultrasonic parameters and related factors of ultrasonic signs were combined into the multivariate logistic regression equation, and the results showed that decreased HC, AC, EFW, small or unmanifested gastric vesicles, polyhydramnios, neck or upper chest pouch, and no visible signs of lower thoracic esophagus were all risk factors for EA. The AUC value of ROC curve for EA diagnosis was 0.891, the diagnostic sensitivity was 91.24%, and the specificity was 79.22%, indicating that the model had high diagnostic accuracy and had guiding significance for the prenatal diagnosis of EA. However, the sample size of this study is small, and its practical value in the prenatal diagnosis of EA needs to be further verified by large samples.In summary, HC, AC, EFW, small or unmanifested gastric vesicles, more amniotic fluid, neck or upper chest pouch, and no visible lower thoracic esophagus are all independent influencing factors of EA. The established logistic multifactor regression model has a high coincidence rate for the prenatal diagnosis of EA, which is conducive to rapid clinical diagnosis. Further multicenter and multiregional prospective studies will be helpful for the development of computer-aided diagnostics programs after fully testing the model.



---

*Source: 8107461-2021-12-22.xml*