Literature DB >> 29422214

Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy.

Lesley M McCowan1, Francesc Figueras2, Ngaire H Anderson3.   

Abstract

Small for gestational age is usually defined as an infant with a birthweight <10th centile for a population or customized standard. Fetal growth restriction refers to a fetus that has failed to reach its biological growth potential because of placental dysfunction. Small-for-gestational-age babies make up 28-45% of nonanomalous stillbirths, and have a higher chance of neurodevelopmental delay, childhood and adult obesity, and metabolic disease. The majority of small-for-gestational-age babies are not recognized before birth. Improved identification, accompanied by surveillance and timely delivery, is associated with reduction in small-for-gestational-age stillbirths. Internationally and regionally, detection of small for gestational age and management of fetal growth problems vary considerably. The aim of this review is to: summarize areas of consensus and controversy between recently published national guidelines on small for gestational age or fetal growth restriction; highlight any recent evidence that should be incorporated into existing guidelines; and identify future research priorities in this field. A search of MEDLINE, Google, and the International Guideline Library identified 6 national guidelines on management of pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction/small for gestational age published from 2010 onwards. There is general consensus between guidelines (at least 4 of 6 guidelines in agreement) in early pregnancy risk selection, and use of low-dose aspirin for women with major risk factors for placental insufficiency. All highlight the importance of smoking cessation to prevent small for gestational age. While there is consensus in recommending fundal height measurement in the third trimester, 3 specify the use of a customized growth chart, while 2 recommend McDonald rule. Routine third-trimester scanning is not recommended for small-for-gestational-age screening, while women with major risk factors should have serial scanning in the third trimester. Umbilical artery Doppler studies in suspected small-for-gestational-age pregnancies are universally advised, however there is inconsistency in the recommended frequency for growth scans after diagnosis of small for gestational age/fetal growth restriction (2-4 weekly). In late-onset fetal growth restriction (≥32 weeks) general consensus is to use cerebral Doppler studies to influence surveillance and/or delivery timing. Fetal surveillance methods (most recommend cardiotocography) and recommended timing of delivery vary. There is universal agreement on the use of corticosteroids before birth at <34 weeks, and general consensus on the use of magnesium sulfate for neuroprotection in early-onset fetal growth restriction (<32 weeks). Most guidelines advise using cardiotocography surveillance to plan delivery in fetal growth restriction <32 weeks. The recommended gestation at delivery for fetal growth restriction with absent and reversed end-diastolic velocity varies from 32 to ≥34 weeks and 30 to ≥34 weeks, respectively. Overall, where there is high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, eg, use of umbilical artery Doppler and corticosteroids for delivery <34 weeks, there is a high degree of consistency between national small-for-gestational-age guidelines. This review discusses areas where there is potential for convergence between small-for-gestational-age guidelines based on existing randomized controlled trials of management of small-for-gestational-age pregnancies, and areas of controversy. Research priorities include assessing the utility of late third-trimester scanning to prevent major morbidity and mortality and to investigate the optimum timing of delivery in fetuses with late-onset fetal growth restriction and abnormal Doppler parameters. Prospective studies are needed to compare new international population ultrasound standards with those in current use.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical management; fetal growth restriction; national guidelines; small for gestational age

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29422214     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  67 in total

1.  Neonatal morbidity and small and large size for gestation: a comparison of birthweight centiles.

Authors:  Robert D Cartwright; Ngaire H Anderson; Lynn C Sadler; Jane E Harding; Lesley M E McCowan; Christopher J D McKinlay
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 2.521

2.  FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  Nir Melamed; Ahmet Baschat; Yoav Yinon; Apostolos Athanasiadis; Federico Mecacci; Francesc Figueras; Vincenzo Berghella; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; H David McIntyre; Fabrício Da Silva Costa; Anne B Kihara; Eran Hadar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Mark Hanson; Ronald C Ma; Rachel Gooden; Eyal Sheiner; Anil Kapur; Hema Divakar; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Liran Hiersch; Liona C Poon; John Kingdom; Roberto Romero; Moshe Hod
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.561

3.  Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by fetal biometry: comparison of customized and population-based standards.

Authors:  D Kabiri; R Romero; D W Gudicha; E Hernandez-Andrade; P Pacora; N Benshalom-Tirosh; D Tirosh; L Yeo; O Erez; S S Hassan; A L Tarca
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Perinatal outcomes of two consecutive strategies for the management of fetal growth restriction: a before-after study.

Authors:  Sabrina Paola Demirdjian; Cesar Hernan Meller; Maria Celeste Berruet; Gonzalo Dosdoglirian; Adolfo Etchegaray
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Uptake and safety of hepatitis A vaccination during pregnancy: A Vaccine Safety Datalink study.

Authors:  Holly C Groom; Ning Smith; Stephanie A Irving; Padma Koppolu; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Elyse O Kharbanda; Matthew F Daley; James G Donahue; Darios Getahun; Lisa A Jackson; Nicola P Klein; Natalie L McCarthy; James D Nordin; Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos; Allison L Naleway
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 3.641

6.  Melatonin 1A and 1B Receptors' Expression Decreases in the Placenta of Women with Fetal Growth Restriction.

Authors:  Andrii M Berbets; Igor S Davydenko; Adrian M Barbe; Dmytro H Konkov; Olena M Albota; Oleksandr M Yuzko
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 3.060

7.  Ambient air pollution and fetal growth restriction: Physician diagnosis of fetal growth restriction versus population-based small-for-gestational age.

Authors:  Carrie J Nobles; Katherine L Grantz; Danping Liu; Andrew Williams; Marion Ouidir; Indulaxmi Seeni; Seth Sherman; Pauline Mendola
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 7.963

8.  Determination of fetal heart rate short-term variation from umbilical artery Doppler waveforms.

Authors:  L S Cahill; G Stortz; A Ravi Chandran; N Milligan; S Shinar; C L Whitehead; S R Hobson; S Millard; C K Macgowan; J C Kingdom; J G Sled; A A Baschat
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 7.299

9.  Profile of severely growth-restricted births undelivered at 40 weeks in Western Australia.

Authors:  Helen D Bailey; Akilew A Adane; Brad M Farrant; Scott W White; Pia Hardelid; Carrington C J Shepherd
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 2.344

10.  Can a Difference in Gestational Age According to Biparietal Diameter and Abdominal Circumference Predict Intrapartum Placental Abruption?

Authors:  Jee-Youn Hong; Jin-Ha Kim; Seo-Yeon Kim; Ji-Hee Sung; Suk-Joo Choi; Soo-Young Oh; Cheong-Rae Roh
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-29       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.