The novel fetal MRI O/E CLV versus O/E LHR in predicting prognosis in congenital diaphragmatic hernias: can we teach an old dog new tricks?

Purpose: In congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), ultrasound (U/S) measurements of the contralateral lung commonly provide the observed-to-expected lung-to-head ratio (O/E LHR) and are used to determine the severity of pulmonary hypoplasia. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurement of the observed-to-expected total lung volume (O/E TLV) has been used as an adjunct to O/E LHR in predicting outcomes. Since O/E LHR only measures the contralateral lung, we sought to investigate if MRI measurements of the contralateral lung volume (O/E CLV) can accurately predict outcomes in CDH. We hypothesize that O/E CLV is a better predictor of CDH outcomes than O/E LHR.

Methods: We identified all infants with a prenatal diagnosis of CDH at our fetal center who had both MRI and U/S measurements. Using lung volume ratios of right-left 55:45, we calculated O/E CLV from O/E TLV. We used receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) to compare the predictive accuracy of O/E CLV to O/E LHR for ECMO support, as well as survival to both discharge and 1 year.

Results: Seventy-four patients had complete prenatal imaging with 39% requiring ECMO support. The median O/E CLV was 48.0% and the median O/E LHR was 42.3%. O/E CLV was a better predictor of the need for ECMO support (AUC 0.81 vs. 0.74). O/E CLV was a better predictor of survival to discharge (AUC 0.84 vs. 0.64) and 1-year survival (AUC 0.83 vs. 0.63) than O/E LHR.

Conclusion: O/E LHR is a well-validated standard for predicting outcomes and guiding prenatal counseling in CDH. We provide evidence that fetal MRI measurements of the contralateral lung volume corrected for gestational age were more accurate in predicting the need for ECMO and survival. Future prospective studies validating O/E CLV regarding outcomes and ECMO utilization are warranted.

Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.