Literature DB >> 26031399

Ultrasound screening for fetal growth restriction at 36 vs 32 weeks' gestation: a randomized trial (ROUTE).

E Roma1, A Arnau2, R Berdala1, C Bergos1, J Montesinos2, F Figueras3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of routine third-trimester ultrasound examination at 36 weeks' gestation with that at 32 weeks in detecting fetal growth restriction (FGR).
METHODS: This was an open-label parallel randomized trial (ROUTE study) conducted at a single general hospital serving a geographically well-defined catchment area in Barcelona, Spain, between May 2011 and April 2014. Women with no adverse medical or obstetric history and a singleton pregnancy without fetal abnormalities at routine second-trimester scan were assigned randomly to undergo a scan at 32 weeks' gestation (n = 1272) or at 36 weeks' gestation (n = 1314). Primary outcome measures were detection rates of FGR (customized birth weight < 10(th) centile) and severe FGR (customized birth weight < 3(rd) centile).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in perinatal outcome between those who underwent a scan at 32 weeks' gestation and those who underwent a scan at 36 weeks' gestation. Severe FGR at birth was associated significantly with emergency Cesarean delivery for fetal distress (odds ratio (OR), 3.4 (95% CI, 1.8-6.7)), neonatal admission (OR, 2.23 (95% CI, 1.23-4.05)), hypoglycemia (OR, 9.5 (95% CI, 1.8-49.8)) and hyperbilirubinemia (OR, 9.0 (95% CI, 4.6-17.6)). Despite similar false-positive rates (FPRs) (6.4% vs 8.2%), FGR detection rates were superior at 36 vs 32 weeks' gestation (sensitivity, 38.8% vs 22.5%; P = 0.006), with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 6.1 vs 2.7 and 0.65 vs 0.84, respectively. In cases of severe FGR, FPRs for both scans were also similar (8.5% vs 8.7%), but detection rates were superior at 36 vs 32 weeks' gestation (61.4% vs 32.5%; P = 0.008). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.2 vs 3.7 and 0.4 vs 0.74, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In low-risk pregnancies, routine ultrasound examination at 36 weeks' gestation was more effective than that at 32 weeks' gestation in detecting FGR and related adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes.
Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fetal development; fetal growth restriction; neonatal complications; placenta; ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26031399     DOI: 10.1002/uog.14915

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


  10 in total

1.  Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies.

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

2.  Risk evaluation of fetal growth restriction by combined screening in early and mid-pregnancy.

Authors:  Bo Wang; Chunhua Zhang
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2020 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.088

3.  Biochemical tests of placental function versus ultrasound assessment of fetal size for stillbirth and small-for-gestational-age infants.

Authors:  Alexander Ep Heazell; Dexter Jl Hayes; Melissa Whitworth; Yemisi Takwoingi; Susan E Bayliss; Clare Davenport
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-05-14

4.  Fractional fetal thigh volume in the prediction of normal and abnormal fetal growth during the third trimester of pregnancy.

Authors:  Louise E Simcox; Jenny E Myers; Tim J Cole; Edward D Johnstone
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Revealed versus concealed criteria for placental insufficiency in an unselected obstetric population in late pregnancy (RATIO37): randomised controlled trial study protocol.

Authors:  Francesc Figueras; Eduard Gratacos; Marta Rial; Ilan Gull; Ladislav Krofta; Marek Lubusky; Rogelio Cruz-Martinez; Mónica Cruz-Lemini; Miguel Martinez-Rodriguez; Pamela Socias; Cristina Aleuanlli; Mauro C Parra Cordero
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Examining the predictive accuracy of metabolomics for small-for-gestational-age babies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Debora Farias Batista Leite; Aude-Claire Morillon; Elias F Melo Júnior; Renato T Souza; Fergus P McCarthy; Ali Khashan; Philip Baker; Louise C Kenny; Jose Guilherme Cecatti
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-10       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Impact of biometric measurement error on identification of small- and large-for-gestational-age fetuses.

Authors:  D Wright; A Wright; E Smith; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 8.  Fetal growth restriction and stillbirth: Biomarkers for identifying at risk fetuses.

Authors:  Victoria J King; Laura Bennet; Peter R Stone; Alys Clark; Alistair J Gunn; Simerdeep K Dhillon
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 4.755

9.  Prediction of late-onset fetal growth restriction by umbilical artery velocities at 37 weeks of gestation: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Hongli Liu; Lan Zhang; Xin Luo; Junnan Li; Shuai Huang; Hongbo Qi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 3.006

10.  Fetal weight projection model to define growth velocity and validation against pregnancy outcome in a cohort of serially scanned pregnancies.

Authors:  O Hugh; J Gardosi
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 8.678

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.