E-ISSN: 2619-9467

Contents    Cover    Publication Date: 23 Oct 2019
Year 2019 - Volume 29 - Issue 3

Open Access

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
1879 Viewed944 Downloaded

Diagnostic and Prognostic Power of the First Biometric Measurements and Doppler Examination in Fetal Growth Restriction

Full Text PDF  
J Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;29(3):100-9
DOI: 10.5336/jcog.2019-70517
Article Language: EN
Copyright Ⓒ 2024 by Türkiye Klinikleri. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ABSTRACT
Objective: Evaluation of fetal growth constitutes a core component of prenatal care. However, the limited accuracy of the sonographic examination complicates this task. In the present study, we assessed the diagnostic and prognostic power of the first biometric measurements and the three arterial Doppler indices in cases with suspected fetal growth restriction (FGR). Material and Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2016 and January 2019. Data on suspected FGR cases were obtained from consultations. Three biometric measurements, namely abdominal circumference (AC), estimated fetal weight (EFW), and femur length (FL); three arterial Doppler indices (umbilical, uterine, and middle cerebral) and one combinatory index; the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) were analyzed to predict cases with neonatal birth weight (NBW) <10th centile. Results: In a sample of 352 pregnancies diagnosed as FGR, 246 (69.9%) cases reported NBW <10th centile (true positives). The AC <3rd centile had the highest sensitivity (81.9%), whereas EFW <3rd centile had the highest specificity (83.2%). For each biometric measurement, the addition of any Doppler index resulted in decreased sensitivity but increased specificity. The frequency of cases with at least one Doppler abnormality was significantly higher in true-positive cases than in false-positive cases (36.9% vs. 22.6%, respectively; p=0.008). In caseswith late-onset FGR, CPR <5th centile was associated with an increased risk of admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (odds ratio [OR]: 6.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.24-18.40; p=0.001). Conclusion: A high sensitivity was associated with the first biometric measurements for detecting FGR. The CPR < 5th centile could be useful in predicting cesarean delivery for fetal distress and NICU admissions in cases with late-onset FGR.
REFERENCES:
  1. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Ecker JL, Feldstein VA, Filly RA, Bacchetti P. US evaluation of fetal growth: prediction of neonatal outcomes. Radiology. 2002;223(1):153-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Hiersch L, Melamed N. Fetal growth velocity and body proportion in the assessment of growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S): S700-11.e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Figueras F, Gratacos E. An integrated approach to fetal growth restriction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;38:48-58. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Kurumu. Doğum öncesi Bakım Yönetim Rehberi. Yayın No: 924. Ankara: Sağlık Bakanlığı; 2014. p.44. [Crossref]
  5. Nardozza LM, Caetano AC, Zamarian AC, Mazzola JB, Silva CP, Marçal VM, et al. Fetal growth restriction: current knowledge. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(5):1061-77. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Deter RL, Lee W, Yeo L, Erez O, Ramamurthy U, Naik M, et al. Individualized growth assessment: conceptual framework and practical implementation for the evaluation of fetal growth and neonatal growth outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S656-78. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
  7. Bhide A, Acharya G, Bilardo CM, Brezinka C, Cafici D, Hernandez-Andrade E, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: use of Doppler ultrasonography in obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(2):233-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, Kennelly MM, McAuliffe FM, O'Donoghue K, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(4): 290.e1-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Gomez O, Figueras F, Fernandez S, Bennasar M, Martinez JM, Puerto B, et al. Reference ranges for uterine artery mean pulsatility index at 11-41 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):128-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Acharya G, Wilsgaard T, Berntsen GK, Maltau JM, Kiserud T. Reference ranges for serial measurements of umbilical artery Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):937-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Ebbing C, Rasmussen S, Kiserud T. Middle cerebral artery blood flow velocities and pulsatility index and the cerebroplacental pulsatility ratio: longitudinal reference ranges and terms for serial measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30(3):287-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 204: Fetal Growth Restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):e97-e109. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Baschat AA, Baker PN, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(3):333-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Turan OM, Turan S, Gungor S, Berg C, Moyano D, Gembruch U, et al. Progression of Doppler abnormalities in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):160-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Grantz KL, Kim S, Grobman WA, Newman R, Owen J, Skupski D, et al. Fetal growth velocity: the NICHD fetal growth studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(3):285.e1-285.e36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Bertino E, Di Battista E, Bossi A, Pagliano M, Fabris C, Aicardi G, et al. Fetal growth velocity: kinetic, clinical, and biological aspects. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996;74(1):F10-5. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
  17. Ott WJ. Sonographic diagnosis of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(2): 295-307. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Snijders RJ, Nicolaides KH. Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994;4(1):34-48. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Chang TC, Robson SC, Boys RJ, Spencer JA. Prediction of the small for gestational age infant: which ultrasonic measurements best? Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80(6):1030-8.
  20. McCowan LM, Figueras F, Anderson NH. Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S855-68. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Khalil A, Thilaganathan B. Role of uteroplacental and fetal Doppler in identifying fetal growth restriction at term. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;38:38-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Oros D, Ruiz-Martinez S, Staines-Urias E, Conde-Agudelo A, Villar J, Fabre E, et al. Reference ranges for Doppler indices of umbilical and fetal middle cerebral arteries and cerebroplacental ratio: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(4):454-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. DeVore GR. The importance of the cerebroplacental ratio in the evaluation of fetal well-being in SGA and AGA fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(1):5-15.
  24. Figueras F, Gratacos E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;36(2):86-98. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Morales-Rosello J, Khalil A, Morlando M, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A, Thilaganathan B. Changes in fetal Doppler indices as a marker of failure to reach growth potential at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(3):303-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Baschat AA, Gembruch U. The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio revisited. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(2):124-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Clifton VL. Review: sex and the human placenta: mediating differential strategies of fetal growth and survival. Placenta. 2010;31 Suppl:S33-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Prior T, Wild M, Mullins E, Bennett P, Kumar S. Sex specific differences in fetal middle cerebral artery and umbilical venous Doppler. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56933. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]