Literature DB >> 26365218

Contingent versus routine third-trimester screening for late fetal growth restriction.

S Triunfo1,2, F Crovetto1,2,3, E Scazzocchio4, M Parra-Saavedra5, E Gratacos1,2, F Figueras1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of third-trimester ultrasound screening for late fetal growth restriction (FGR) on a contingent basis, according to risk accrued in the second trimester, in an unselected population.
METHODS: Maternal characteristics, fetal biometry and second-trimester uterine artery (UtA) Doppler were included in logistic regression analysis to estimate risk for late FGR (birth weight < 3(rd) percentile, or 3(rd) -10(th) percentile plus abnormal cerebroplacental ratio or UtA Doppler, with delivery ≥ 34 weeks). Based on the second-trimester risk, strategies for performing contingent third-trimester ultrasound examinations in 10%, 25% or 50% of the cohort were tested against a strategy of routine ultrasound scanning in the entire population at 32 + 0 to 33 + 6 weeks.
RESULTS: Models were constructed based on 1393 patients and validated in 1303 patients, including 73 (5.2%) and 82 late FGR (6.3%) cases, respectively. At the second-trimester scan, the a-posteriori second-trimester risk (a-posteriori first-trimester risk (baseline a-priori risk and mean arterial blood pressure) combined with second-trimester abdominal circumference and UtA Doppler) yielded an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87) (detection rate (DR), 43.1% for a 10% false-positive rate (FPR)). The combination of a-posteriori second-trimester risk plus third-trimester estimated fetal weight (full model) yielded an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96) (DR, 74% for a 10% FPR). Subjecting 10%, 25% or 50% of the study population to third-trimester ultrasound, based on a-posteriori second-trimester risk, gave AUCs of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.88), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.91) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94), respectively. Only the 50% contingent model proved statistically equivalent to performing routine third-trimester ultrasound scans (AUC, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), P = 0.11).
CONCLUSION: A strategy of selecting 50% of the study population to undergo third-trimester ultrasound examination, based on accrued risk in the second trimester, proved equivalent to routine third-trimester ultrasound scanning in predicting late FGR.
Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  estimated fetal weight; fetal growth restriction; neonatal complications; ultrasonography; uterine artery Doppler

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26365218     DOI: 10.1002/uog.15740

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


  6 in total

1.  Selective versus universal third trimester ultrasound: Time for a rethink? An audit of current practices at a metropolitan Sydney hospital.

Authors:  Kristina King; Jinny Foo; Kirsty Hazelton; Amanda Henry
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2018-03-22

2.  Personalized Model to Predict Small for Gestational Age at Delivery Using Fetal Biometrics, Maternal Characteristics, and Pregnancy Biomarkers: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Births Assisted at a Spanish Hospital.

Authors:  Peña Dieste-Pérez; Ricardo Savirón-Cornudella; Mauricio Tajada-Duaso; Faustino R Pérez-López; Sergio Castán-Mateo; Gerardo Sanz; Luis Mariano Esteban
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-05-08

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.  Prediction of Small for Gestational Age Infants in Healthy Nulliparous Women Using Clinical and Ultrasound Risk Factors Combined with Early Pregnancy Biomarkers.

Authors:  Lesley M E McCowan; John M D Thompson; Rennae S Taylor; Philip N Baker; Robyn A North; Lucilla Poston; Claire T Roberts; Nigel A B Simpson; James J Walker; Jenny Myers; Louise C Kenny
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Behaviour of the Foramen Ovale Flow in Fetuses with Intrauterine Growth Restriction.

Authors:  Ângela R L Nader; Paulo Zielinsky; Alexandre Antonio Naujorks; Luiz Henrique S Nicoloso; Antonio Luiz Piccoli Junior; Natássia Miranda Sulis; Luiza Ferreira van der Sand; Victoria de Bittencourt Antunes; Gabriela Dos Santos Marinho; Fernanda Greinert Dos Santos; Natan Pereira Gosmann; Eduardo Becker Júnior; Renato Frajndlich; Tamara Beherens; Marcelo Brandão da Silva; Carolina Barbisan; Stefano Busato; Mauro Lopes; Caroline Klein
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2018-01-17

6.  "Screening for small-for-gestational age neonates at early third trimester in a high-risk population for preeclampsia".

Authors:  Raquel Mula; Eva Meler; Sandra García; Gerard Albaigés; Bernat Serra; Elena Scazzocchio; Pilar Prats
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 3.007

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.