Literature DB >> 15229913

Increased risk of perinatal/neonatal death in infants who were smaller than expected at ultrasound fetometry in early pregnancy.

K Källén1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if there is an association between perinatal/neonatal death and a discrepancy between gestational age by ultrasound fetometry in early pregnancy (GA(U)) and gestational age by last menstrual period (GA(LMP)), and to investigate possible causes for such an association.
METHODS: The Swedish Medical Birth Registry was used to identify singleton pregnancies with information available on GA(LMP) and GA(U) that were delivered in Sweden between 1990 and 2000. A total of 718 011 pregnancies was included and information on the pregnancy and delivery was obtained from the National Board of Health.
RESULTS: Infants with a GA(U) at least 7 days less than the GA(LMP) were at increased risk for stillbirth (odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% CI, 1.32-1.58), neonatal death within 1 month (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.67-2.09), Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.24), birth weight < 2500 g (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.43-1.52), and preterm birth < 37 weeks (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.42-1.49). The association between a postponed expected date of delivery and perinatal/neonatal death increased with gestational length and was especially pronounced among infants who were born after at least 40 completed weeks of pregnancy (GA(U)).
CONCLUSIONS: A discrepancy between GA(U) and GA(LMP) may indicate early disturbances in fetal/placental development. Furthermore, it can be speculated that, as the risk significantly increased with gestational duration, at least a part of the increased risk for poor pregnancy outcome in adjusted pregnancies was due to consequences of true post-term pregnancies not being recognized as such. Copyright 2004 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15229913     DOI: 10.1002/uog.1082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  9 in total

1.  Adverse Infant Outcomes Associated with Discordant Gestational Age Estimates.

Authors:  Nils-Halvdan Morken; Rolv Skjaerven; Jennifer L Richards; Michael R Kramer; Sven Cnattingius; Stefan Johansson; Mika Gissler; Siobhan M Dolan; Jennifer Zeitlin; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.980

2.  Fetal somatic growth trajectory differs by type of congenital heart disease.

Authors:  Kriti Puri; Carri R Warshak; Mounira A Habli; Amy Yuan; Rashmi D Sahay; Eileen C King; Allison Divanovic; James F Cnota
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 3.756

3.  Early childhood development when second-trimester ultrasound dating disagrees with last menstrual period: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jagteshwar Grewal; Meghan Wernicke; Jun Zhang
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Effects of ultrasound pregnancy dating on neonatal morbidity in late preterm and early term male infants: a register-based cohort study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Bengt Haglund; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Slow fetal growth between first and early second trimester ultrasound scans and risk of small for gestational age (SGA) birth.

Authors:  Marija Simic; Olof Stephansson; Gunnar Petersson; Sven Cnattingius; Anna-Karin Wikström
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Discordant dating of pregnancy by LMP and ultrasound and its implications in perinatal statistics.

Authors:  Lalit K Sharma; Jyoti Bindal; Vishal A Shrivastava; Mansi Sharma; Rijo M Choorakuttil; Praveen K Nirmalan
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2020-03-30

7.  Fetal size in the second trimester is associated with the duration of pregnancy, small fetuses having longer pregnancies.

Authors:  Synnøve L Johnsen; Tom Wilsgaard; Svein Rasmussen; Mark A Hanson; Keith M Godfrey; Torvid Kiserud
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Maternal and fetal characteristics affect discrepancies between pregnancy-dating methods: a population-based cross-sectional register study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Jan Wesström; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2016-11-13       Impact factor: 3.636

9.  Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Michaela Granfors; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.