Literature DB >> 36038657

Role of the cerebro-placental-uterine ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome in low-risk pregnancies at term.

Oliver Graupner1,2, Markus Meister3, Linda Lecker3, Sepideh Karim-Payab3, Cordula Franz3, Juliane Carow3, Christian Enzensberger3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) is associated with adverse perinatal outcome (APO) in low-risk pregnancies near term. A Doppler parameter, which also includes information from the uterine vessels could potentially improve detection of subclinical placental dysfunction. The aim of this study is to investigate the performance of cerebro-placental-uterine ratio (CPUR) related to APO prediction in low-risk term pregnancies in > 40 + 0 weeks.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. All low-risk pregnancies in which feto-maternal Doppler was examined from 40 + 0 weeks and an appropriate for gestational age fetus was present were included. ROC (receiver operating characteristic curves) analyses were performed to assess the predictive value of CPUR. The presence of at least one of the following outcome parameters was defined as composite APO (CAPO): operative delivery (OD) due to intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, umbilical cord arterial pH ≤ 7.15, 5 min APGAR ≤ 7.
RESULTS: A total of n = 114 cases were included. Mean gestational age at examination and delivery were 40 + 3 weeks and 40 + 6 weeks, respectively. Overall, CAPO occurred in 38 of 114 cases (33.3%). ROC analyses showed a significant association of CPUR (AUC = 0.67, p = 0.004) and CPR (AUC = 0.68, p = 0.002) with CAPO. Additionally, CPUR (AUC = 0.64, p = 0.040) showed a predictive value for OD due to IFC.
CONCLUSION: The CPUR in > 40 + 0 weeks showed a predictive value for CAPO and OD due to IFC in low-risk pregnancies. However, the extent to which CPUR can be used to optimize delivery management warrants further investigations in prospective interventional studies.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse perinatal outcome; Cerebroplacental ratio; Cerebroplacental-uterine ratio; Full term; Late term; Uterine artery doppler

Year:  2022        PMID: 36038657     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06733-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.493


  14 in total

1.  Does Uterine Doppler Add Information to the Cerebroplacental Ratio for the Prediction of Adverse Perinatal Outcome at the End of Pregnancy?

Authors:  José Morales-Roselló; Silvia Buongiorno; Gabriela Loscalzo; Cristina Abad García; Antonio José Cañada Martínez; Alfredo Perales Marín
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 2.587

Review 2.  Review: Systematic review of the utility of the fetal cerebroplacental ratio measured at term for the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome.

Authors:  Liam Dunn; Helen Sherrell; Sailesh Kumar
Journal:  Placenta       Date:  2017-02-12       Impact factor: 3.481

3.  Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by cerebroplacental ratio adjusted for estimated fetal weight.

Authors:  A Sirico; A Diemert; P Glosemeyer; K Hecher
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Cerebroplacental ratio thresholds measured within 2 weeks before birth and risk of Cesarean section for intrapartum fetal compromise and adverse neonatal outcome.

Authors:  L N Bligh; A A Alsolai; R M Greer; S Kumar
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-08-05       Impact factor: 7.299

5.  Poor neonatal acid-base status in term fetuses with low cerebroplacental ratio.

Authors:  J Morales-Roselló; A Khalil; M Morlando; A Bhide; A Papageorghiou; B Thilaganathan
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 7.299

6.  Does gestational age at term play a role in the association between cerebroplacental ratio and operative delivery for intrapartum fetal compromise?

Authors:  Javier U Ortiz; Oliver Graupner; Anne Karge; Sarah Flechsenhar; Bernhard Haller; Eva Ostermayer; Kathrin Abel; Bettina Kuschel; Silvia M Lobmaier
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.636

7.  Induction of Labour. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k, AWMF Registry No. 015-088, December 2020).

Authors:  Sven Kehl; Irene Hösli; Ulrich Pecks; Philipp Reif; Ralf L Schild; Markus Schmidt; Dagmar Schmitz; Christiane Schwarz; Daniel Surbek; Michael Abou-Dakn
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 2.754

8.  Fetal Medicine Foundation reference ranges for umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index and cerebroplacental ratio.

Authors:  A Ciobanu; A Wright; A Syngelaki; D Wright; R Akolekar; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 7.299

9.  Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women.

Authors:  William A Grobman; Madeline M Rice; Uma M Reddy; Alan T N Tita; Robert M Silver; Gail Mallett; Kim Hill; Elizabeth A Thom; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Annette Perez-Delboy; Dwight J Rouse; George R Saade; Kim A Boggess; Suneet P Chauhan; Jay D Iams; Edward K Chien; Brian M Casey; Ronald S Gibbs; Sindhu K Srinivas; Geeta K Swamy; Hyagriv N Simhan; George A Macones
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): use of Doppler velocimetry in obstetrics.

Authors:  A Bhide; G Acharya; A Baschat; C M Bilardo; C Brezinka; D Cafici; C Ebbing; E Hernandez-Andrade; K Kalache; J Kingdom; T Kiserud; S Kumar; W Lee; C Lees; K Y Leung; G Malinger; G Mari; F Prefumo; W Sepulveda; B Trudinger
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 7.299

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.