Use of biochemical tests of placental function for improving pregnancy outcome

BACKGROUND: The placenta has an essential role in determining the outcome of pregnancy. Consequently, biochemical measurement of placentally-derived factors has been suggested as a means to improve fetal and maternal outcome of pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether clinicians' knowledge of the results of biochemical tests of placental function is associated with improvement in fetal or maternal outcome of pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the merits of the use of biochemical tests of placental function to improve pregnancy outcome.Studies were eligible if they compared women who had placental function tests and the results were available to their clinicians with women who either did not have the tests, or the tests were done but the results were not available to the clinicians. The placental function tests were any biochemical test of placental function carried out using the woman's maternal biofluid, either alone or in combination with other placental function test/s. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Authors of published trials were contacted for further information. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included, two quasi-randomised controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. One trial was deemed to be at low risk of bias while the other two were at high risk of bias. Different biochemical analytes were measured - oestrogen was measured in one trial and the other two measured human placental lactogen (hPL). One trial did not contribute outcome data, therefore, the results of this review are based on two trials with 740 participants.There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of death of a baby (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.13, two trials, 740 participants (very low quality evidence)) or the frequency of a small-for-gestational-age infant (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.19, one trial, 118 participants (low quality evidence)).In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a clear difference between women who had biochemical tests of placental function compared with standard antenatal care for the incidence of stillbirth (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.88, two trials, 740 participants (very low quality evidence)) or neonatal death (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.74, two trials, 740 participants, very low quality evidence)) although the directions of any potential effect were in opposing directions. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in elective delivery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14, two trials, 740 participants (low quality evidence)), caesarean section (one trial, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.52, one trial, 118 participants (low quality evidence)), change in anxiety score (mean difference -2.40, 95% CI -4.78 to -0.02, one trial, 118 participants), admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.01, one trial, 118 participants), and preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation (RR 2.90, 95% CI 0.12 to 69.81, one trial, 118 participants). One trial (118 participants) reported that there were no cases of serious neonatal morbidity. Maternal death was not reported.A number of this review's secondary outcomes relating to the baby were not reported in the included studies, namely: umbilical artery pH seven days, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and women's perception of care). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of biochemical tests of placental function to reduce perinatal mortality or increase identification of small-for-gestational-age infants. However, we were only able to include data from two studies that measured oestrogens and hPL. The quality of the evidence was low or very low.Two of the trials were performed in the 1970s on women with a variety of antenatal complications and this evidence cannot be generalised to women at low-risk of complications or groups of women with specific pregnancy complications (e.g. fetal growth restriction). Furthermore, outcomes described in the 1970s may not reflect what would be expected at present. For example, neonatal mortality rates have fallen substantially, such that an infant delivered at 28 weeks would have a greater chance of survival were those studies repeated; this may affect the primary outcome of the meta-analysis.With data from just two studies (740 women), this review is underpowered to detect a difference in the incidence of death of a baby or the frequency of a small-for-gestational-age infant as these have a background incidence of approximately 0.75% and 10% of pregnancies respectively. Similarly, this review is underpowered to detect differences between serious and/or rare adverse events such as severe neonatal morbidity. Two of the three included studies were quasi-randomised, with significant risk of bias from group allocation. Additionally, there may be performance bias as in one of the two studies contributing data, participants receiving standard care did not have venepuncture, so clinicians treating participants could identify which arm of the study they were in. Future studies should consider more robust randomisation methods and concealment of group allocation and should be adequately powered to detect differences in rare adverse events.The studies identified in this review examined two different analytes: oestrogens and hPL. There are many other placental products that could be employed as surrogates of placental function, including: placental growth factor (PlGF), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), plasma protein A (PAPP-A), placental protein 13 (PP-13), pregnancy-specific glycoproteins and progesterone metabolites and further studies should be encouraged to investigate these other placental products. Future randomised controlled trials should test analytes identified as having the best predictive reliability for placental dysfunction leading to small-for-gestational-age infants and perinatal mortality

Improved Management of Stillbirth using a Care Pathway.

PurposeEach year approximately 3,200 women have a stillbirth in the UK. Although national evidence-based guidance has existed since 2010, case reviews continue to identify suboptimal clinical care and communication with parents. Inconsistencies in management include induction and management of labour and the frequency of investigation after stillbirth. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approachAn audit of stillbirths was performed in 2014 in 13 maternity units in the North West of England, this confirmed variation in practice described nationally. An integrated care pathway (ICP) was developed from national guidelines to enable optimal care for the management of stillbirth, reduce variation, standardise investigations and coordinate patient-focussed care. This was launched in 2015 and updated in 2016 to resolve the issues that were apparent after implementation.FindingsEach participating unit had commenced using the ICP by May 2015. Following implementation there were changes in care, most notably from diverse methods for the induction of labour to guideline-directed induction of labour. There were trends towards better care in terms of information given, choices offered, more appropriate analgesia in labour and improved post-delivery investigation for cause. Staff feedback about the ICP was positive.Practical implicationsThe use of this ICP improved care for women who had a stillbirth and their families. Issues with implementing a changed care pathway meant that further iterations were required, ongoing improvement is expected following the refinement of the ICP.Originality/valueICPs have been used for various clinical conditions. However, this is the first example of their use in women who had a stillbirth

Stillbirths preceded by reduced fetal movements are more frequently associated with placental insufficiency:a retrospective cohort study

Objectives: Maternal report of reduced fetal movements (RFM) is a means of identifying fetal compromise in pregnancy. In live births RFM is associated with altered placental structure and function. Here, we explored associations between RFM, pregnancy characteristics, and the presence of placental abnormalities and fetal growth restriction (FGR) in cases of stillbirth. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out in a single UK tertiary maternity unit. Cases were divided into three groups: 109 women reporting RFM, 33 women with absent fetal movements (AFM) and 159 who did not report RFM before the diagnosis of stillbirth. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations between RFM/AFM, pregnancy characteristics, placental insufficiency and the classification of the stillbirth. Results: AFM or RFM were reported prior to diagnosis of stillbirth in 142 (47.2%) of cases. Pregnancies with RFM prior to diagnosis of stillbirth were independently associated with placental insufficiency (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.84, 5.04) and were less frequently associated with maternal proteinuria (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07, 0.62) and previous pregnancy loss Conclusions: The association between RFM and placental insufficiency was confirmed in cases of stillbirth. This provides further evidence that RFM is a symptom of placental insufficiency. Therefore, investigation after RFM should aim to identify placental dysfunction

Placental PHLDA2 expression is increased in cases of fetal growth restriction following reduced fetal movements

Background Maternal perception of reduced fetal movements (RFM) is associated with increased risk of fetal growth restriction (FGR) and stillbirth, mediated by placental insufficiency. The maternally expressed imprinted gene PHLDA2 controls fetal growth, placental development and placental lactogen production in a mouse model. A number of studies have also demonstrated abnormally elevated placental PHLDA2 expression in human growth restricted pregnancies. This study examined whether PHLDA2 was aberrantly expressed in placentas of RFM pregnancies resulting in delivery of an FGR infant and explored a possible relationship between PHLDA2 expression and placental lactogen release from the human placenta. Methods Villous trophoblast samples were obtained from a cohort of women reporting RFM (N = 109) and PHLDA2 gene expression analysed. hPL levels were assayed in the maternal serum (N = 74). Results Placental PHLDA2 expression was significantly 2.3 fold higher in RFM pregnancies resulting in delivery of an infant with FGR (p < 0.01), with highest levels of PHLDA2 expression in the most severe cases. Placental PHLDA2 expression was associated with maternal serum hPL levels (r = −0.30, p = 0.008, n = 74) although this failed to reach statistical significance in multiple linear regression analysis controlling for birth weight (p = 0.07). Conclusions These results further highlight a role for placental PHLDA2 in poor perinatal outcomes, specifically FGR associated with RFM. Furthermore, this study suggests a potential relationship between placental PHLDA2 expression and hPL production by the placenta, an association that requires further investigation in a larger cohort