Literature DB >> 24360357

Definition and management of fetal growth restriction: a survey of contemporary attitudes.

Julia Unterscheider1, Sean Daly2, Michael P Geary3, Mairead M Kennelly4, Fionnuala M McAuliffe5, Keelin O'Donoghue6, Alyson Hunter7, John J Morrison8, Gerard Burke9, Patrick Dicker10, Elizabeth C Tully10, Fergal D Malone10.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate opinions among Irish obstetricians and obstetric trainees regarding the optimal definition, assessment and management of pregnancies affected by intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). STUDY
DESIGN: An anonymous, structured, web-based survey that comprised 14 questions was sent to 200 obstetricians and obstetric trainees in Ireland.
RESULTS: Of the 113 participants (57% response rate), the majority (50%) were consultants, with over 10 years' clinical experience (46%), who worked in large maternity units (58%) with neonatal units providing care for preterm IUGR fetuses (94%). Eighty-three clinicians (74%) agreed that an estimated fetal weight (EFW) below the 10th centile constitutes small-for-gestational age (SGA). The majority (n=93; 82%) would deliver the SGA fetus between 37(+0) and 39(+6) weeks gestation. In total, the survey yielded 30 different IUGR definitions; the top three definitions were (i) an EFW below the 5th centile (n=18; 16%), (ii) an EFW below the 10th centile with oligohydramnios and abnormal umbilical artery (UA) Doppler (n=16; 14%), and (iii) an EFW below the 10th centile (n=12; 11%). In the evaluation of the preterm IUGR fetus with abnormal UA Doppler, the assessment of amniotic fluid volume, middle cerebral artery, ductus venosus, cardiotocograph (CTG) and biophysical profiling was performed in 74%, 60%, 60%, 54% and 52% respectively. The majority of clinicians applied three or more assessment modalities and 60% referred to a maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialist. Interestingly, even among MFM subspecialists there was no common consistent management approach. Most doctors (81%) would deliver the IUGR fetus for CTG abnormalities but MFM subspecialists more commonly deliver on the basis of absent end-diastolic flow in the UA alone (37% vs. 10%; p=0.006). Two-thirds of doctors (n=74) would implement customised growth charts if they became available for their population and over 80% thought that a national guideline on IUGR would be beneficial.
CONCLUSION: The results of this survey confirm the inconsistencies surrounding the clinical management of IUGR pregnancies and highlight the need for standardisation of terminology and antenatal surveillance, implementation of fetal weight customisation and national guidance for Ireland.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Definition; Fetal growth restriction; Management; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24360357     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.11.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  11 in total

1.  Delivery of the growth restricted preterm fetus.

Authors:  Neeta L Vora; Nancy Chescheir
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Assessment of M2/ANXA5 haplotype as a risk factor in couples with placenta-mediated pregnancy complications.

Authors:  Nina Rogenhofer; Lara R M Nienaber; Lea C Amshoff; Nadia Bogdanova; David Petroff; Peter Wieacker; Christian J Thaler; Arseni Markoff
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Detection and assessment of brain injury in the growth-restricted fetus and neonate.

Authors:  Atul Malhotra; Michael Ditchfield; Michael C Fahey; Margie Castillo-Melendez; Beth J Allison; Graeme R Polglase; Euan M Wallace; Ryan Hodges; Graham Jenkin; Suzanne L Miller
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 3.756

4.  A Novel Use of Three-dimensional High-frequency Ultrasonography for Early Pregnancy Characterization in the Mouse.

Authors:  Mary C Peavey; Corey L Reynolds; Maria M Szwarc; William E Gibbons; Cecilia T Valdes; Francesco J DeMayo; John P Lydon
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  Intrauterine growth restriction and hypospadias: is there a connection?

Authors:  Min-Jye Chen; Charles G Macias; Sheila K Gunn; Jennifer E Dietrich; David R Roth; Bruce J Schlomer; Lefkothea P Karaviti
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Endocrinol       Date:  2014-10-15

6.  Multidisciplinary consensus on screening for, diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Viki Verfaille; Ank de Jonge; Lidwine Mokkink; Myrte Westerneng; Henriëtte van der Horst; Petra Jellema; Arie Franx
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 7.  Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Samantha C Lean; Hayley Derricott; Rebecca L Jones; Alexander E P Heazell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Maternal Nutrient Restriction Alters Ca2+ Handling Properties and Contractile Function of Isolated Left Ventricle Bundles in Male But Not Female Juvenile Rats.

Authors:  Thomas J Harvey; Robyn M Murphy; Janna L Morrison; Giuseppe S Posterino
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/080, October 2016).

Authors:  Sven Kehl; Jörg Dötsch; Kurt Hecher; Dietmar Schlembach; Dagmar Schmitz; Holger Stepan; Ulrich Gembruch
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 2.915

10.  Fetal growth restriction: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data.

Authors:  Sarah Rae Easter; Linda O Eckert; Nansi Boghossian; Rebecca Spencer; Eugene Oteng-Ntim; Christos Ioannou; Manasi Patwardhan; Margo S Harrison; Asma Khalil; Michael Gravett; Robert Goldenberg; Alastair McKelvey; Manish Gupta; Vitali Pool; Stephen C Robson; Jyoti Joshi; Sonali Kochhar; Tom McElrath
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.641

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.