Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy

Policiano C.a,b· Mendes J.M.c· Fonseca A.a· Barros J.a,b· Vargas S.a· Cal M.a· Martins I.a· Carvalho C.a,b· Martins D.a· Clode N.a· Graca L.M.b

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHLN - University Hospital of Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal
bFaculty of Medicine of University of Lisbon, CAM- Academic Center of Medicine of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
cNOVAIMS, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: February 23, 2022
Accepted: September 12, 2022
Published online: December 19, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 1015-3837 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9964 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/FDT

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 35–37 weeks’ ultrasound for fetal growth restriction (FGR) detection and the impact of 30th–33rd weeks versus 30th–33rd and 35th–37th weeks’ ultrasound on perinatal outcomes. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial that enrolled 1,061 low-risk pregnant women: 513 in the control group (routine ultrasound performed at 30th–33rd weeks) and 548 in the study group (with an additional ultrasound at 35th–37th weeks). FGR was defined as a fetus with an estimated fetal weight (EFW) below the 10th percentile. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The ultrasound at 35–37 weeks had an overall accuracy of FGR screening of 94%. Spearman’s correlation coefficient between EFW and birthweight centile was higher for at 35–37 weeks’ ultrasound (ρ = 0.75) compared with 30–33 weeks’ ultrasound (ρ = 0.44). The study group had a lower rate of operative vaginal deliveries (24.4% vs. 39.3%, p = 0.005) and cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal status (16.8% vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001). Discussion/Conclusion: A later ultrasound (35–37 weeks) had a high accuracy for detection of FGR and had a higher correlation between EFW and birthweight centiles. Furthermore, it was also associated with lower adverse perinatal outcomes compared to an earlier ultrasound.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References Mayer C, Joseph KS. Fetal growth: a review of terms, concepts and issues relevant to obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(2):136–45. Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD001451. Fretts RC, Boyd ME, Usher RH, Usher HA. The changing pattern of fetal death, 1961–1988. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79(1):35–9. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet. 2016;387(10018):587–603. Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestation age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(3):258–64. Gardosi J, Madurasinghe V, Williams M, Malik A, Francis A. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study. BMJ. 2013;346(jan24 3):f108. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva; 2016. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, da Silva Costa F, Deter R, Figueras F, Ghi T, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(6):715–23. Geral de Saúde D. Programa Nacional para a Vigilância da Gravidez de Baixo Risco. Available from: https://www.dgs.pt/em-destaque/programa-nacional-para-a-vigilancia-da-gravidez-de-baixo-risco.aspx. Roma E, Arnau A, Berdala R, Bergos C, Figueras F. Ultrasound screening for fetal growth restriction at 36 vs 32 weeks’ gestation: a randomized trial (ROUTE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):391–7. Papageorghiou A, Sarris I, Ioannou C, Todros T, Carvalho M, Pilu G, et al. Ultrasound methodology used to construct the fetal growth standards in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG. 2013;120:27–32. Napolitano R, Donadono V, Ohuma EO, Knight CL, Wanyonyi SZ, Kemp B, et al. Scientific basis for standardization of fetal head measurements by ultrasound: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(1):80–5. Shepard M, Filly RA. A standardized plane for biparietal diameter measurement. J Ultrasound Med. 1982;1(4):145–50. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;151(3):333–7. Yudkin P, Aboualfa M, Eyre J, Redman C, Wilkinson A. New birthweight and head circumference centiles for gestational ages 24 to 42 weeks. Early Hum Dev. 1987;15(1):45–52. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 134: fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1122–33. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1232–40. Policiano C, Fonseca A, Mendes JM, Clode N, Graça LM Small-for-gestational-age babies of low-risk term pregnancies: does antenatal detection matter? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(11):1426–30. Wanyonyi SZ, Orwa J, Ozelle H, Martinez J, Atsali E, Vinayak S, et al. Routine third-trimester ultrasound for the detection of small-for-gestational age in low-risk pregnancies (ROTTUS study): randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57:910–6. Caradeux J, Martinez-Portilla RJ, Peguero A, Sotiriadis A, Figueras F. Diagnostic performance of third-trimester ultrasound for the prediction of late-onset fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(5):449–59.e19. Ciobanu A, Khan N, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Routine ultrasound at 32 vs 36 weeks' gestation: prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(6):761–8. Pilliod RA, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Doss AE, Caughey AB, The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:318.e1–6. Owen P, Donnet ML, Ogston SA, Christie AD, Howie PW, Patel NB. Standards for ultrasound fetal growth velocity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(1):60–9. MacDonald TM, Hui L, Tong S, Robinson AJ, Dane KM, Middleton AL, et al. Reduced growth velocity across the third trimester is associated with placental insufficiency in fetuses born at a normal birthweight: a prospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2017;15:164–12. Caradeux J, Eixarch E, Mazarico E, Basuki TR, Gratacos E, Figueras F. Longitudinal growth assessment for prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in fetuses suspected to be small-for-gestational age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(3):325–31. Caradeux J, Eixarch E, Mazarico E, Basuki TR, Gratacós E, Figueras F. Second- to third-trimester longitudinal growth assessment for prediction of small-for-gestational age and late fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(2):219–24. 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. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: February 23, 2022
Accepted: September 12, 2022
Published online: December 19, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 1015-3837 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9964 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/FDT

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.