Fluid in the Wrong Places: What a Diagnosis of Hydrops Means, and What Doctors Can Actually Predict

A seven-year study of 130 pregnancies at a hospital in Riyadh, and what it tells families facing this diagnosis

Hydrops fetalis means that fluid has built up in at least two places inside a baby before birth — around the lungs, around the heart, in the abdomen, or under the skin. It is not one disease but a warning sign that can come from many different underlying causes, some very serious and a few quite treatable. A seven-year study from a large hospital in Saudi Arabia now shows which features of the first ultrasound scan genuinely help predict what happens next.

What doctors mean when they say "hydrops"

Extra fluid in only one place has its own name and meaning. Hydrops is the word doctors use when fluid appears in two or more separate areas at once. It matters because fluid collecting in several places usually means something is interfering with how the baby's body moves fluid around — through the tiny blood vessels, the tissue spaces, and the lymphatic drainage system that carries fluid back into circulation [1], [2].

The hard part is that hydrops does not tell you why. A heart that formed incorrectly can cause it, and so can a chromosome difference, a genetic condition, an infection caught during pregnancy, a problem with the lymphatic system, a blockage in the chest, or a complication in a twin pregnancy. Sometimes no cause is ever found. This is why the first conversation after a hydrops diagnosis is often frustrating: the picture is clear, and the meaning is not [3].

The problem families used to face — and what changed

For most of the twentieth century, the commonest cause of hydrops was a mismatch between a mother's blood type and her baby's. If a mother's immune system recognised her baby's red blood cells as foreign, it made antibodies that crossed into the baby and destroyed those cells; the baby became severely anaemic, the heart worked harder, and fluid began to build up. This was called immune hydrops, and before the 1970s it was common and frequently fatal.

Then came anti-D prophylaxis — a routine injection given to mothers whose blood type puts their baby at risk. It works, and it changed the landscape almost completely. Today, roughly 80 to 90 out of every 100 babies with hydrops have non-immune hydrops, meaning the cause is something other than antibodies [1].

That is good news, but it left doctors with the harder half of the problem. Immune hydrops has one mechanism and one treatment: a blood transfusion before birth. Non-immune hydrops has dozens of possible causes and no single fix. Medical guidance, particularly from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, now sets out a step-by-step evaluation to find the cause [4], and doctors have spent thirty years working out which features of a scan predict outcome [5], [6]. What families have been told, though, has often come from small studies that followed babies only until they left hospital. One of the largest, from southern China, described more than a thousand cases but could not follow families to the first birthday [7]. Before this study, families in the Middle East were counselled partly on a 17-case report ending in 1994 — before modern genetic testing existed [8].

How this study was done

Doctors at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — a large referral hospital where the fetal medicine service and the newborn intensive care unit sit side by side — reviewed every pregnancy where hydrops was found on a scan and the baby was delivered there between January 2016 and December 2022 [1]. Out of 63,000 births, they found 116 pregnancies with non-immune hydrops and 14 with immune hydrops. Because the two services share records, they could follow each pregnancy from diagnosis to the child's first birthday — which is unusual, and is what makes the study useful. This was a look-back study, not an experiment: nobody was assigned to a treatment.

What the study found

The outcomes were serious, and it is better to state them plainly. Among the 116 pregnancies with non-immune hydrops, 57 out of every 100 ended in stillbirth, 8 in 100 in termination of the pregnancy, and 35 in 100 in a baby born alive. Of those 41 babies, 18 — a little under half — were still alive at one year.

But those averages hide the most useful part of the study: outcomes varied enormously by cause. All three babies whose hydrops came from congenital chylothorax — a build-up of lymph fluid around the lungs — were alive at one year, as were all three with urinary tract problems and both with intestinal problems. At the other end, none survived when the cause was a cystic hygroma (a large lymphatic swelling, usually in the neck), and none in the group where testing was never completed.

Why the timing of the scan matters so much

The clearest pattern in the study was when the hydrops was first seen. The average point in pregnancy at which it was diagnosed rose steadily with better outcomes: about 18 weeks where the pregnancy ended in termination, 21 weeks in stillbirth, 26 weeks where the baby was born alive but died as a newborn, and 29 weeks among the babies who reached their first birthday. Among the one-year survivors, nearly 9 out of 10 had been diagnosed in the third trimester.

There is a reason behind this, and it is not simply that later is luckier. Hydrops appearing very early is more often caused by a severe chromosomal or genetic condition that would be serious whatever anyone did; hydrops appearing later is more likely to have a cause that can improve, or that at least allows the baby time to grow. Other groups have found the same pattern — a large UK study found that in pregnancies managed without intervention, timing of diagnosis was the only factor linked to survival [9], and European cohorts report the same gradient [10].

A second, very concrete measure was how many parts of the body were affected. With fluid in two areas, more than half the babies reached one year; in three, about 4 in 100; in all four, none. Families can follow this one themselves, because it is exactly what the sonographer counts on the screen.

Fluid around the lungs: the finding that may be treatable

One specific feature stood out: fluid around the baby's lungs, called pleural effusion. Pregnancies with this feature were about six times more likely to end in stillbirth or termination than those without it.

That sounds like only bad news, but it is also where a treatment exists. In selected cases doctors can place a tiny tube — a shunt — to drain fluid from around the baby's chest into the surrounding amniotic fluid, relieving pressure on the developing lungs. Survival after this procedure has approached 60 in 100 in carefully chosen cases [11], though results depend heavily on the cause and on whether hydrops has already developed [12], [13]. In this hospital, drainage before birth was performed in only 2 of the 116 pregnancies. So a chest effusion is not a reason to expect the worst; it is a reason to ask whether referral to a fetal-therapy centre would be appropriate.

What happens after a baby is born

Here the study found something genuinely encouraging. Once a baby with non-immune hydrops was born alive, none of the warning signs from before birth predicted whether that baby would reach one year. Only one thing did: how many weeks pregnant the mother was at delivery. Every extra week was associated with roughly a 55% increase in the odds of surviving to one year. Babies who survived had been born at an average of 34.4 weeks; those who did not, at 32.8 weeks. This is why obstetric teams work hard to keep a pregnancy going a little longer when it is safe to do so — not optimism, but the finding with the strongest support in this data.

Families should also know what the first days look like. Nearly 9 in 10 of these babies needed a breathing tube immediately at birth, some needed fluid drained from the chest or abdomen in the delivery room, and a number required advanced ventilation or inhaled nitric oxide, a gas that opens the blood vessels in the lungs. None of that signalled a worse outcome — those interventions were needed about equally often in babies who survived and those who did not.

When the cause is the mother's antibodies

The 14 pregnancies with immune hydrops followed a very different path, because here the cause was both known and treatable. Almost all of these babies received blood transfusions while still in the womb, through a needle into the umbilical cord. Ten of the 14 — just over 7 in 10 — were alive at one year, compared with about 2 in 10 for the non-immune group overall.

The road was demanding. All ten babies born alive received intravenous immunoglobulin, which slows the destruction of red blood cells; eight had an exchange transfusion, in which the baby's blood is gradually replaced; eight needed a ventilator for a median of about two weeks; and it took a median of 24 days before they could take all their feeds. The typical hospital stay was 41 days. Knowing that in advance does not make it easier, but it does make it less frightening.

What families can reasonably ask for

Three questions are worth asking after a hydrops diagnosis. Has a full search for the cause been done — detailed ultrasound, an echocardiogram of the baby's heart, infection testing, and genetic testing? Is there fluid around the lungs, and if so, should we see a fetal-therapy centre? And how long can this pregnancy safely continue? That first question matters more than it may appear: almost 1 in 5 cases here were recorded as "unspecified" — not because the cause was undiscoverable, but because testing was never completed, usually because the baby died first. That lost information is what parents need most when deciding about a future pregnancy.

What researchers are working on next

The most active area is genetic testing. Exome sequencing — reading the protein-coding parts of a baby's DNA — now finds a specific genetic explanation in a meaningful share of babies with non-immune hydrops where nothing else has [14], and researchers have measured how often it succeeds so families know what to expect [15]. Getting those results faster, and running them on placental or fetal tissue after a loss, is the goal — closely related to the rapid genetic testing described in Whole-Genome Sequencing Doubles Change of Management in Critically Ill Infants.

Researchers are also asking for much larger, multi-hospital studies. This one, honest about its limits, involved a single hospital with small numbers in each cause, and did not follow the surviving children long enough to describe how they developed later — the piece families most want and the one the research has not yet delivered.

What this study does deliver is real. It tells families that the timing of the scan and fluid around the lungs carry genuine meaning; that counting affected areas gives an honest sense of the odds; that every week of pregnancy already achieved was worth something; and that when the cause is treatable, the outlook can be very different from the average.

References

  1. Ali K, Alharbi A, Alshaibi S, et al. Immune and non-immune hydrops fetalis in a Saudi tertiary center: etiologies, antenatal predictors, perinatal outcomes, and one-year survival in a seven-year cohort. Front Pediatr. 2026;14:1693325. doi:10.3389/fped.2026.1693325 ↩
  2. Bellini C, Hennekam RC. Non-immune hydrops fetalis: a short review of etiology and pathophysiology. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(3):597–605. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34438 ↩
  3. Bellini C, Donarini G, Paladini D, et al. Etiology of non-immune hydrops fetalis: an update. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167A(5):1082–1088. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36988 ↩
  4. Norton ME, Chauhan SP, Dashe JS. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) clinical guideline #7: nonimmune hydrops fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):127–139. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.12.018 ↩
  5. Skoll MA, Sharland GK, Allan LD. Is the ultrasound definition of fluid collections in non-immune hydrops fetalis helpful in defining the underlying cause or predicting outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1991;1(5):309–312. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1991.01050309.x ↩
  6. Mardy AH, Chetty SP, Norton ME, Sparks TN. A system-based approach to the genetic etiologies of non-immune hydrops fetalis. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39(9):732–750. doi:10.1002/pd.5479 ↩
  7. Meng D, Li Q, Hu X, et al. Etiology and outcome of non-immune hydrops fetalis in southern China: report of 1004 cases. Sci Rep. 2019;9:10726. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47050-6 ↩
  8. Rejjal ARA, Rahbeeni Z, Al-Zahrani A-F. Prognostic factors and prenatal management in non immune hydrops fetalis are still a dilemma. J Perinat Med. 1996;24(5):461–466. doi:10.1515/jpme.1996.24.5.461 ↩
  9. Sileo FG, Kulkarni A, Branescu I, et al. Non-immune fetal hydrops: etiology and outcome according to gestational age at diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56(3):416–421. doi:10.1002/uog.22019 ↩
  10. Reischer T, Muth B, Catic A, et al. Clinical course and outcome of non-immune fetal hydrops in singleton pregnancies. J Clin Med. 2022;11(3):702. doi:10.3390/jcm11030702 ↩
  11. Yinon Y, Grisaru-Granovsky S, Chaddha V, et al. Perinatal outcome following fetal chest shunt insertion for pleural effusion. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(1):58–64. doi:10.1002/uog.7507 ↩
  12. Petersen S, Kaur R, Thomas JT, Cincotta R, Gardener G. The outcome of isolated primary fetal hydrothorax: a 10-year review from a tertiary center. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013;34(2):69–76. doi:10.1159/000351855 ↩
  13. Carson E, Devaseelan P, Ong S. Systematic review of pleural-amniotic shunt insertion vs. conservative management in isolated bilateral fetal hydrothorax without hydrops. Ir J Med Sci. 2020;189(2):595–601. doi:10.1007/s11845-019-02094-5 ↩
  14. Sparks TN, Thao K, Lianoglou BR, et al. Nonimmune hydrops fetalis: identifying the underlying genetic etiology. Genet Med. 2019;21(6):1339–1344. doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0352-6 ↩
  15. Al-Kouatly HB, Shivashankar K, Mossayebi MH, et al. Diagnostic yield from prenatal exome sequencing for non-immune hydrops fetalis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genet. 2023;103(5):503–512. doi:10.1111/cge.14309 ↩