Cargando…

Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016

IMPORTANCE: The use of medical imaging has sharply increased over the last 2 decades. Imaging rates during pregnancy have not been quantified in a large, multisite study setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patterns of medical imaging during pregnancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwan, Marilyn L., Miglioretti, Diana L., Marlow, Emily C., Aiello Bowles, E. J., Weinmann, Sheila, Cheng, Stephanie Y., Deosaransingh, Kamala A., Chavan, Prachi, Moy, Lisa M., Bolch, Wesley E., Duncan, James R., Greenlee, Robert T., Kushi, Lawrence H., Pole, Jason D., Rahm, Alanna K., Stout, Natasha K., Smith-Bindman, R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31339541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7249
_version_ 1783439121889361920
author Kwan, Marilyn L.
Miglioretti, Diana L.
Marlow, Emily C.
Aiello Bowles, E. J.
Weinmann, Sheila
Cheng, Stephanie Y.
Deosaransingh, Kamala A.
Chavan, Prachi
Moy, Lisa M.
Bolch, Wesley E.
Duncan, James R.
Greenlee, Robert T.
Kushi, Lawrence H.
Pole, Jason D.
Rahm, Alanna K.
Stout, Natasha K.
Smith-Bindman, R.
author_facet Kwan, Marilyn L.
Miglioretti, Diana L.
Marlow, Emily C.
Aiello Bowles, E. J.
Weinmann, Sheila
Cheng, Stephanie Y.
Deosaransingh, Kamala A.
Chavan, Prachi
Moy, Lisa M.
Bolch, Wesley E.
Duncan, James R.
Greenlee, Robert T.
Kushi, Lawrence H.
Pole, Jason D.
Rahm, Alanna K.
Stout, Natasha K.
Smith-Bindman, R.
author_sort Kwan, Marilyn L.
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: The use of medical imaging has sharply increased over the last 2 decades. Imaging rates during pregnancy have not been quantified in a large, multisite study setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patterns of medical imaging during pregnancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at 6 US integrated health care systems and in Ontario, Canada. Participants included pregnant women who gave birth to a live neonate of at least 24 weeks’ gestation between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2016, and who were enrolled in the health care system for the entire pregnancy. EXPOSURES: Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography, angiography and fluoroscopy, and nuclear medicine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Imaging rates per pregnancy stratified by country and year of child’s birth. RESULTS: A total of 3 497 603 pregnancies in 2 211 789 women were included. Overall, 26% of pregnancies were from US sites. Most (92%) were in women aged 20 to 39 years, and 85% resulted in full-term births. Computed tomography imaging rates in the United States increased from 2.0 examinations/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 11.4/1000 pregnancies in 2007, remained stable through 2010, and decreased to 9.3/1000 pregnancies by 2016, for an overall increase of 3.7-fold. Computed tomography rates in Ontario, Canada, increased more gradually by 2.0-fold, from 2.0/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 6.2/1000 pregnancies in 2016, which was 33% lower than in the United States. Overall, 5.3% of pregnant women in US sites and 3.6% in Ontario underwent imaging with ionizing radiation, and 0.8% of women at US sites and 0.4% in Ontario underwent CT. Magnetic resonance imaging rates increased steadily from 1.0/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 11.9/1000 pregnancies in 2016 in the United States and from 0.5/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 9.8/1000 pregnancies in 2016 in Ontario, surpassing CT rates in 2013 in the United States and in 2007 in Ontario. In the United States, radiography rates doubled from 34.5/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 72.6/1000 pregnancies in 1999 and then decreased to 47.6/1000 pregnancies in 2016; rates in Ontario slowly increased from 36.2/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 44.7/1000 pregnancies in 2016. Angiography and fluoroscopy and nuclear medicine use rates were low (5.2/1000 pregnancies), but in most years, higher in Ontario than the United States. Imaging rates were highest for women who were younger than 20 years or aged 40 years or older, gave birth preterm, or were black, Native American, or Hispanic (US data only). Considering advanced imaging only, chest imaging of pregnant women was more likely to use CT in the United States and nuclear medicine imaging in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of CT during pregnancy substantially increased in the United States and Ontario over the past 2 decades. Imaging rates during pregnancy should be monitored to avoid unnecessary exposure of women and fetuses to ionizing radiation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6659354
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66593542019-08-07 Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016 Kwan, Marilyn L. Miglioretti, Diana L. Marlow, Emily C. Aiello Bowles, E. J. Weinmann, Sheila Cheng, Stephanie Y. Deosaransingh, Kamala A. Chavan, Prachi Moy, Lisa M. Bolch, Wesley E. Duncan, James R. Greenlee, Robert T. Kushi, Lawrence H. Pole, Jason D. Rahm, Alanna K. Stout, Natasha K. Smith-Bindman, R. JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: The use of medical imaging has sharply increased over the last 2 decades. Imaging rates during pregnancy have not been quantified in a large, multisite study setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patterns of medical imaging during pregnancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at 6 US integrated health care systems and in Ontario, Canada. Participants included pregnant women who gave birth to a live neonate of at least 24 weeks’ gestation between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2016, and who were enrolled in the health care system for the entire pregnancy. EXPOSURES: Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography, angiography and fluoroscopy, and nuclear medicine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Imaging rates per pregnancy stratified by country and year of child’s birth. RESULTS: A total of 3 497 603 pregnancies in 2 211 789 women were included. Overall, 26% of pregnancies were from US sites. Most (92%) were in women aged 20 to 39 years, and 85% resulted in full-term births. Computed tomography imaging rates in the United States increased from 2.0 examinations/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 11.4/1000 pregnancies in 2007, remained stable through 2010, and decreased to 9.3/1000 pregnancies by 2016, for an overall increase of 3.7-fold. Computed tomography rates in Ontario, Canada, increased more gradually by 2.0-fold, from 2.0/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 6.2/1000 pregnancies in 2016, which was 33% lower than in the United States. Overall, 5.3% of pregnant women in US sites and 3.6% in Ontario underwent imaging with ionizing radiation, and 0.8% of women at US sites and 0.4% in Ontario underwent CT. Magnetic resonance imaging rates increased steadily from 1.0/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 11.9/1000 pregnancies in 2016 in the United States and from 0.5/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 9.8/1000 pregnancies in 2016 in Ontario, surpassing CT rates in 2013 in the United States and in 2007 in Ontario. In the United States, radiography rates doubled from 34.5/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 72.6/1000 pregnancies in 1999 and then decreased to 47.6/1000 pregnancies in 2016; rates in Ontario slowly increased from 36.2/1000 pregnancies in 1996 to 44.7/1000 pregnancies in 2016. Angiography and fluoroscopy and nuclear medicine use rates were low (5.2/1000 pregnancies), but in most years, higher in Ontario than the United States. Imaging rates were highest for women who were younger than 20 years or aged 40 years or older, gave birth preterm, or were black, Native American, or Hispanic (US data only). Considering advanced imaging only, chest imaging of pregnant women was more likely to use CT in the United States and nuclear medicine imaging in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of CT during pregnancy substantially increased in the United States and Ontario over the past 2 decades. Imaging rates during pregnancy should be monitored to avoid unnecessary exposure of women and fetuses to ionizing radiation. American Medical Association 2019-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6659354/ /pubmed/31339541 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7249 Text en Copyright 2019 Kwan ML et al. JAMA Network Open. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Kwan, Marilyn L.
Miglioretti, Diana L.
Marlow, Emily C.
Aiello Bowles, E. J.
Weinmann, Sheila
Cheng, Stephanie Y.
Deosaransingh, Kamala A.
Chavan, Prachi
Moy, Lisa M.
Bolch, Wesley E.
Duncan, James R.
Greenlee, Robert T.
Kushi, Lawrence H.
Pole, Jason D.
Rahm, Alanna K.
Stout, Natasha K.
Smith-Bindman, R.
Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016
title Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016
title_full Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016
title_fullStr Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016
title_full_unstemmed Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016
title_short Trends in Medical Imaging During Pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016
title_sort trends in medical imaging during pregnancy in the united states and ontario, canada, 1996 to 2016
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31339541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7249
work_keys_str_mv AT kwanmarilynl trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT migliorettidianal trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT marlowemilyc trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT aiellobowlesej trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT weinmannsheila trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT chengstephaniey trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT deosaransinghkamalaa trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT chavanprachi trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT moylisam trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT bolchwesleye trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT duncanjamesr trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT greenleerobertt trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT kushilawrenceh trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT polejasond trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT rahmalannak trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT stoutnatashak trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016
AT smithbindmanr trendsinmedicalimagingduringpregnancyintheunitedstatesandontariocanada1996to2016