Literature DB >> 30119716

Screening for fetal growth restriction using ultrasound and the sFLT1/PlGF ratio in nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study.

Francesca Gaccioli1, Ulla Sovio1, Emma Cook2, Martin Hund3, D Stephen Charnock-Jones1, Gordon C S Smith4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction is a major determinant of perinatal morbidity and mortality. This condition has no gold standard definition, but a widely used proxy is delivery of a small for gestational age infant (<10th percentile) combined with an adverse pregnancy outcome. Effective screening for fetal growth restriction is an area of unmet clinical need. We aimed to determine the diagnostic effectiveness of a combination of ultrasonic fetal biometry and measurement of the ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor 1 (sFLT1) to placental growth factor (PlGF) in predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with delivery of a small for gestational age infant.
METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, using serial antenatal blood sampling and blinded ultrasound scans, we investigated the association between the combination of an elevated sFLT1/PlGF ratio (>85th percentile) and ultrasonically suspected small for gestational age (<10th percentile) at both 28 and 36 weeks of gestational age. The outcome following the 28 week measurement was preterm delivery of a small for gestational age infant. The outcome following the 36 week measurement was subsequent delivery of a small for gestational infant associated with maternal pre-eclampsia or perinatal morbidity or mortality. All definitions of exposure and outcome were predefined before we did our data analysis.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 14, 2008, and July 31, 2012, we recruited 4512 nulliparous women. 4098 women (91%) had a sFLT1/PlGF ratio measurement and estimated fetal weight at 28 or 36 weeks of gestational age, and outcome data available. 3981 women were analysed for 28 weeks of gestational age measurements and 3747 women were analysed for 36 weeks of gestational age measurements. At 28 weeks, 47 (1%) of 3981 women had the combination of ultrasonic small for gestational age and an elevated sFLT1/PlGF ratio. The positive likelihood ratio for preterm delivery of a small for gestational age infant associated with this combination was 41·1 (95% CI 23·0-73·6), the sensitivity was 38·5% (21·1-59·3), the specificity was 99·1% (98·7-99·3), and the positive predictive value was 21·3% (11·6-35·8). At 36 weeks, 102 (3%) of 3747 women had the combination of ultrasonic small for gestational age and an elevated sFLT1/PlGF ratio. The positive likelihood ratio for delivery of a small for gestational age infant associated with maternal pre-eclampsia or perinatal morbidity or mortality was 17·5 (95% CI 11·8-25·9), the sensitivity was 37·9% (26·1-51·4), the specificity was 97·8% (97·3-98·3), and the positive predictive value was 21·6% (14·5-30·8). The positive likelihood ratios at both gestational ages were higher than previously described definitions of suspected fetal growth restriction using purely ultrasonic assessment.
INTERPRETATION: The combination of ultrasonically suspected small for gestational age plus an elevated sFLT1/PlGF ratio in unselected nulliparous women identified a relatively small proportion of women who have high absolute risks of clinically important adverse outcomes. Screening and intervention based on this approach could result in net benefit and this could be an appropriate subject for a randomised controlled trial. FUNDING: NIHR Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Medical Research Council, and Stillbirth and neonatal death society (Sands).
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30119716      PMCID: PMC6473551          DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30129-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Child Adolesc Health        ISSN: 2352-4642


  33 in total

1.  Antenatal care, identification of suboptimal fetal growth and risk of late stillbirth: findings from the Auckland Stillbirth Study.

Authors:  Tomasina Stacey; John M D Thompson; Edwin A Mitchell; Jane M Zuccollo; Alec J Ekeroma; Lesley M E McCowan
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 2.100

2.  Suboptimal care in stillbirths - a retrospective audit study.

Authors:  Eli Saastad; Siri Vangen; J Frederik Frøen
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.636

3.  Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies.

Authors:  D L Simel; G P Samsa; D B Matchar
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard.

Authors:  F P Hadlock; R B Harrist; J Martinez-Poyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Intrauterine growth restriction: new standards for assessing adverse outcome.

Authors:  Jason Gardosi
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2009-10-24       Impact factor: 5.237

6.  Screening for intrauterine growth restriction in uncomplicated pregnancies: time for action.

Authors:  Suneet P Chauhan; Dwight J Rouse; Cande V Ananth; Everett F Magann; Eugene Chang; Joshua D Dahlke; Alfred Z Abuhamad
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Fundal height: a useful screening tool for fetal growth?

Authors:  Teresa N Sparks; Yvonne W Cheng; Blake McLaughlin; Tania F Esakoff; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2010-09-17

8.  Effectiveness of detection of intrauterine growth retardation by abdominal palpation as screening test in a low risk population: an observational study.

Authors:  Joke M J Bais; Martine Eskes; Maria Pel; Gouke J Bonsel; Otto P Bleker
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 9.  Stillbirth.

Authors:  Gordon C S Smith; Ruth C Fretts
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Study protocol. A prospective cohort study of unselected primiparous women: the pregnancy outcome prediction study.

Authors:  Dharmintra Pasupathy; Alison Dacey; Emma Cook; D Stephen Charnock-Jones; Ian R White; Gordon C S Smith
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2008-11-19       Impact factor: 3.007

View more
  14 in total

1.  Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

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

2.  Identification of the optimal growth chart and threshold for the prediction of antepartum stillbirth.

Authors:  Liran Hiersch; Hayley Lipworth; John Kingdom; Jon Barrett; Nir Melamed
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Predicting Preeclampsia Pregnancy Termination Time Using sFlt-1.

Authors:  Hiroaki Tanaka; Kayo Tanaka; Sho Takakura; Naosuke Enomoto; Tomoaki Ikeda
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-20

4.  Assessing the sensitivity of placental growth factor and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 at 36 weeks' gestation to predict small-for-gestational-age infants or late-onset preeclampsia: a prospective nested case-control study.

Authors:  Teresa M MacDonald; Chuong Tran; Tu'uhevaha J Kaitu'u-Lino; Shaun P Brennecke; Richard J Hiscock; Lisa Hui; Kirsten M Dane; Anna L Middleton; Ping Cannon; Susan P Walker; Stephen Tong
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Short-Term Prediction of Adverse Outcomes Using the sFlt-1 (Soluble fms-Like Tyrosine Kinase 1)/PlGF (Placental Growth Factor) Ratio in Asian Women With Suspected Preeclampsia.

Authors:  Xuming Bian; Arijit Biswas; Xianghuang Huang; Kyoung Jin Lee; Thomas Kwok-To Li; Hisashi Masuyama; Akihide Ohkuchi; Joong Shin Park; Shigeru Saito; Kok Hian Tan; Tatsuo Yamamoto; Angela Dietl; Sonja Grill; Wilma D J Verhagen-Kamerbeek; Jae-Yoon Shim; Martin Hund
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 10.190

6.  Effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasonography to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancy (the IRIS study): nationwide, pragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

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

7.  Placental polyamine metabolism differs by fetal sex, fetal growth restriction, and preeclampsia.

Authors:  Sungsam Gong; Ulla Sovio; Irving Lmh Aye; Francesca Gaccioli; Justyna Dopierala; Michelle D Johnson; Angela M Wood; Emma Cook; Benjamin J Jenkins; Albert Koulman; Robert A Casero; Miguel Constância; D Stephen Charnock-Jones; Gordon Cs Smith
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2018-07-12

8.  Standard care informed by the result of a placental growth factor blood test versus standard care alone in women with reduced fetal movement at or after 36+0 weeks' gestation: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Lindsay Armstrong-Buisseret; Peter J Godolphin; Lucy Bradshaw; Eleanor Mitchell; Sam Ratcliffe; Claire Storey; Alexander E P Heazell
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2020-02-13

Review 9.  Combining Biomarkers to Predict Pregnancy Complications and Redefine Preeclampsia: The Angiogenic-Placental Syndrome.

Authors:  Holger Stepan; Martin Hund; Theresa Andraczek
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Maternal serum glycosylated fibronectin as a short-term predictor of preeclampsia: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Evelyn A Huhn; Ina Hoffmann; Begoña Martinez De Tejada; Soeren Lange; Kylie M Sage; Charles T Roberts; Michael G Gravett; Srinivasa R Nagalla; Olav Lapaire
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.