I Monier1, B Blondel, A Ego, M Kaminiski, F Goffinet, J Zeitlin. 1. Inserm UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of small for gestational age (SGA) and normal birthweight infants suspected of fetal growth restriction (FGR) during pregnancy, and to investigate obstetric and neonatal outcomes by suspicion of FGR and SGA status at birth. DESIGN: Population-based study. SETTING: All French maternity units in 2010. POPULATION: Representative sample of singleton births (n = 14,100). METHODS: We compared SGA infants with a birthweight of less than the 10th percentile suspected of FGR, defined as mention of FGR in medical charts (true positives), non-SGA infants suspected of FGR (false positives), SGA infants without suspicion of FGR (false negatives) and non-SGA infants without suspicion of FGR (true negatives). Multivariable analyses were adjusted for maternal and neonatal characteristics hypothesised to affect closer surveillance for FGR and our outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric management (caesarean, provider-initiated preterm and early term delivery) and neonatal outcomes (late fetal death, preterm birth, Apgar score, resuscitation at birth). RESULTS: 21.7% of SGA infants (n = 265) and 2.1% of non-SGA infants (n = 271) were suspected of FGR during pregnancy. Compared with true negatives, provider-initiated preterm deliveries were higher for true and false positives (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 6.1 [95% CI, 3.8-9.8] and 4.6 [95% CI, 3.2-6.7]), but not for false negatives (aRR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6-1.9]). Neonatal outcomes were not better for SGA infants if FGR was suspected. CONCLUSION: Antenatal suspicion of FGR among SGA infants was low and one-half of infants suspected of FGR were not SGA. The increased risk of provider-initiated delivery observed in non-SGA infants suspected of FGR raises concerns about the iatrogenic consequences of screening.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of small for gestational age (SGA) and normal birthweight infants suspected of fetal growth restriction (FGR) during pregnancy, and to investigate obstetric and neonatal outcomes by suspicion of FGR and SGA status at birth. DESIGN: Population-based study. SETTING: All French maternity units in 2010. POPULATION: Representative sample of singleton births (n = 14,100). METHODS: We compared SGA infants with a birthweight of less than the 10th percentile suspected of FGR, defined as mention of FGR in medical charts (true positives), non-SGA infants suspected of FGR (false positives), SGA infants without suspicion of FGR (false negatives) and non-SGA infants without suspicion of FGR (true negatives). Multivariable analyses were adjusted for maternal and neonatal characteristics hypothesised to affect closer surveillance for FGR and our outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric management (caesarean, provider-initiated preterm and early term delivery) and neonatal outcomes (late fetal death, preterm birth, Apgar score, resuscitation at birth). RESULTS: 21.7% of SGA infants (n = 265) and 2.1% of non-SGA infants (n = 271) were suspected of FGR during pregnancy. Compared with true negatives, provider-initiated preterm deliveries were higher for true and false positives (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 6.1 [95% CI, 3.8-9.8] and 4.6 [95% CI, 3.2-6.7]), but not for false negatives (aRR, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6-1.9]). Neonatal outcomes were not better for SGA infants if FGR was suspected. CONCLUSION: Antenatal suspicion of FGR among SGA infants was low and one-half of infants suspected of FGR were not SGA. The increased risk of provider-initiated delivery observed in non-SGA infants suspected of FGR raises concerns about the iatrogenic consequences of screening.
Authors: Gordon Cs Smith; Alexandros A Moraitis; David Wastlund; Jim G Thornton; Aris Papageorghiou; Julia Sanders; Alexander Ep Heazell; Stephen C Robson; Ulla Sovio; Peter Brocklehurst; Edward Cf Wilson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Suneet P Chauhan; Madeline Murguia Rice; William A Grobman; Jennifer Bailit; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Mona Prasad; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Jorge E Tolosa Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Francesca Gaccioli; Ulla Sovio; Emma Cook; Martin Hund; D Stephen Charnock-Jones; Gordon C S Smith Journal: Lancet Child Adolesc Health Date: 2018-06-19
Authors: Katherine L Grantz; Ana M Ortega-Villa; Sarah J Pugh; Alaina Bever; William Grobman; Roger B Newman; John Owen; Deborah A Wing; Paul S Albert Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ibrahim A Hammad; Suneet P Chauhan; Malgorzata Mlynarczyk; Nader Rabie; Chris Goodie; Eugene Chang; Everett F Magann; Alfred Z Abuhamad Journal: AJP Rep Date: 2015-11-16
Authors: Jens Henrichs; Viki Verfaille; Petra Jellema; Laura Viester; Eva Pajkrt; Janneke Wilschut; Henriëtte E van der Horst; Arie Franx; Ank de Jonge Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-10-15