Literature DB >> 9688242

Routine screening for intrauterine growth retardation in Germany: low sensitivity and questionable benefit for diagnosed cases.

A Jahn1, O Razum, P Berle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antenatal screening for fetal growth retardation has proven effective in detecting at-risk pregnancies under study conditions. It is also widely believed to improve pregnancy outcomes. We assessed sensitivity of antenatal screening routines for intrauterine growth retardation under routine service conditions in Germany. We then compared pregnancy management and outcome in small for gestational age neonates with antenatally diagnosed growth retardation to neonates whose growth retardation had remained undetected.
METHODS: Historical prospective study covering all 2378 singleton pregnancies with antenatal records delivered within a one-year period at a tertiary level maternity hospital in Germany. Antenatal records were linked with pregnancy outcome data.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of screening routines based on ultrasound and non-systematic follow-up investigations was 32% as compared to 80-90% reported for ultrasound screening under study conditions. An antenatal diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation was associated with a 5 times higher rate of preterm delivery (p<0.001), mainly as a consequence of medical interventions to avoid fetal compromise, when compared to new-borns with growth retardation not detected before delivery; admission rates to neonatal care unit were 3 times higher (p<0.001). The proportion of low Apgar scores and low cord pH, indicating fetal distress, was not significantly different in detected and undetected cases.
CONCLUSION: Screening routines for intrauterine growth retardation currently used in Germany miss the majority of cases and do not contribute towards improved pregnancy outcome in detected cases. A benefit of elective preterm delivery in the management of suspected intrauterine growth retardation was not evident.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9688242     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.1998.770611.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  12 in total

1.  Fetal growth restriction: current perspectives.

Authors:  Marianna Faraci; Eliana Renda; Santo Monte; Fosca A F Di Prima; Oriana Valenti; Roberta De Domenico; Elsa Giorgio; Entela Hyseni
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2011-04

2.  Combining Internet-Based and Postal Survey Methods in a Survey among Gynecologists: Results of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Sinja Alexandra Ernst; Tilman Brand; Stefan K Lhachimi; Hajo Zeeb
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Antiphospholipid antibodies and pregnancy outcomes in women heterozygous for factor V Leiden.

Authors:  Tracy Manuck; D Ware Branch; Yinglei Lai; Baha Sibai; Catherine Y Spong; George Wendel; Katharine Wenstrom; Philip Samuels; Steve N Caritis; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Mary J O'Sullivan; Deborah Conway; Ronald J Wapner
Journal:  J Reprod Immunol       Date:  2010-05-02       Impact factor: 4.054

4.  First-trimester placental ultrasound and maternal serum markers as predictors of small-for-gestational-age infants.

Authors:  Nadav Schwartz; Mary D Sammel; Rita Leite; Samuel Parry
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  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

Review 6.  Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  Jacqueline E A K Bamfo; Anthony O Odibo
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2011-04-13

7.  Labour and neonatal outcome in small for gestational age babies delivered beyond 36+0 weeks: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  K E Boers; J A M van der Post; Ben W J Mol; J M M van Lith; S A Scherjon
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2010-12-15

8.  Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT).

Authors:  K E Boers; S M C Vijgen; D Bijlenga; J A M van der Post; D J Bekedam; A Kwee; P C M van der Salm; M G van Pampus; M E A Spaanderman; K de Boer; J J Duvekot; H A Bremer; T H M Hasaart; F M C Delemarre; K W M Bloemenkamp; C A van Meir; C Willekes; E J Wijnen; M Rijken; S le Cessie; F J M E Roumen; J G Thornton; J M M van Lith; B W J Mol; S A Scherjon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-12-21

9.  Care-related factors associated with antepartal diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction: a case-control study.

Authors:  Sinja Alexandra Ernst; Anna Reeske; Jacob Spallek; Knud Petersen; Tilman Brand; Hajo Zeeb
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Uncomplicated Pregnancies and Ultrasounds for Fetal Growth Restriction: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Ibrahim A Hammad; Suneet P Chauhan; Malgorzata Mlynarczyk; Nader Rabie; Chris Goodie; Eugene Chang; Everett F Magann; Alfred Z Abuhamad
Journal:  AJP Rep       Date:  2015-11-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.