Business Models and E-Services: an Ontological Approach in a Cross-border Environment

Monograph's chapter

Do differences in diagnostic criteria for late fetal growth restriction matter?

Background: Criteria for diagnosis of fetal growth restriction differ widely according to national and international guidelines, and further heterogeneity arises from the use of different biometric and Doppler reference charts, making the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction highly variable. Objective: This study aimed to compare fetal growth restriction definitions between Delphi consensus and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definitions, using different standards/charts for fetal biometry and different reference ranges for Doppler velocimetry parameters. Study design: From the TRUFFLE 2 feasibility study (856 women with singleton pregnancy at 32+0 to 36+6 weeks of gestation and at risk of fetal growth restriction), we selected 564 women with available mid-pregnancy biometry. For the comparison, we used standards/charts for estimated fetal weight and abdominal circumference from Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, and GROW and Chitty. Percentiles for umbilical artery pulsatility index and its ratios with middle cerebral artery pulsatility index were calculated using Arduini and Ebbing reference charts. Sensitivity and specificity for low birthweight and adverse perinatal outcome were evaluated. Results: Different combinations of definitions and reference charts identified substantially different proportions of fetuses within our population as having fetal growth restriction, varying from 38% (with Delphi consensus definition, INTERGROWTH-21st biometric standards, and Arduini Doppler reference ranges) to 93% (with Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition and Hadlock biometric standards). None of the different combinations tested appeared effective, with relative risk for birthweight <10th percentile between 1.4 and 2.1. Birthweight <10th percentile was observed most frequently when selection was made with the GROW/Chitty charts, slightly less with the Hadlock standard, and least frequently with the INTERGROWTH-21st standard. Using the Ebbing Doppler reference ranges resulted in a far higher proportion identified as having fetal growth restriction compared with the Arduini Doppler reference ranges, whereas Delphi consensus definition with Ebbing Doppler reference ranges produced similar results to those of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition. Application of Delphi consensus definition with Arduini Doppler reference ranges was significantly associated with adverse perinatal outcome, with any biometric standards/charts. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition could not accurately detect adverse perinatal outcome irrespective of estimated fetal weight standard/chart used. Conclusion: Different combinations of fetal growth restriction definitions, biometry standards/charts, and Doppler reference ranges identify different proportions of fetuses with fetal growth restriction. The difference in adverse perinatal outcome may be modest, but can have a significant impact in terms of rate of intervention

Fetal cerebral Doppler changes and outcome in late preterm fetal growth restriction: prospective cohort study

Objectives: To explore the association between fetal umbilical and middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler abnormalities and outcome in late preterm pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation, enrolled in 33 European centers between 2017 and 2018, in which umbilical and fetal MCA Doppler velocimetry was performed. Pregnancies were considered at risk of fetal growth restriction if they had estimated fetal weight and/or abdominal circumference (AC) < 10th percentile, abnormal arterial Doppler and/or a fall in AC growth velocity of more than 40 percentile points from the 20-week scan. Composite adverse outcome comprised both immediate adverse birth outcome and major neonatal morbidity. Using a range of cut-off values, the association of MCA pulsatility index and umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR) with composite adverse outcome was explored. Results: The study population comprised 856 women. There were two (0.2%) intrauterine deaths. Median gestational age at delivery was 38 (interquartile range (IQR), 37–39) weeks and birth weight was 2478 (IQR, 2140–2790) g. Compared with infants with normal outcome, those with composite adverse outcome (n = 93; 11%) were delivered at an earlier gestational age (36 vs 38 weeks) and had a lower birth weight (1900 vs 2540 g). The first Doppler observation of MCA pulsatility index < 5th percentile and UCR Z-score above gestational-age-specific thresholds (1.5 at 32–33 weeks and 1.0 at 34–36 weeks) had the highest relative risks (RR) for composite adverse outcome (RR 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5–3.2) and RR 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4–3.0), respectively). After adjustment for confounders, the association between UCR Z-score and composite adverse outcome remained significant, although gestational age at delivery and birth-weight Z-score had a stronger association. Conclusion: In this prospective multicenter study, signs of cerebral blood flow redistribution were found to be associated with adverse outcome in late preterm singleton pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction. Whether cerebral redistribution is a marker describing the severity of fetal growth restriction or an independent risk factor for adverse outcome remains unclear, and whether it is useful for clinical management can be answered only in a randomized trial. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fetal cerebral blood-flow redistribution: analysis of Doppler reference charts and association of different thresholds with adverse perinatal outcome.

OBJECTIVES: First, to compare published Doppler reference charts of the ratios of flow in the fetal middle cerebral and umbilical arteries (i.e. the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR)). Second, to assess the association of thresholds of CPR and UCR based on these charts with short-term composite adverse perinatal outcome in a cohort of pregnancies considered to be at risk of late preterm fetal growth restriction. METHODS: Studies presenting reference charts for CPR or UCR were searched for in PubMed. Formulae for plotting the median and the 10th percentile (for CPR) or the 90th percentile (for UCR) against gestational age were extracted from the publication or calculated from the published tables. Data from a prospective European multicenter observational cohort study of singleton pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation, in which fetal arterial Doppler measurements were collected longitudinally, were used to compare the different charts. Specifically, the association of UCR and CPR thresholds (CPR < 10th percentile or UCR ≥ 90th percentile and multiples of the median (MoM) values) with composite adverse perinatal outcome was analyzed. The association was also compared between chart-based thresholds and absolute thresholds. Composite adverse perinatal outcome comprised both abnormal condition at birth and major neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: Ten studies presenting reference charts for CPR or UCR were retrieved. There were large differences between the charts in the 10th and 90th percentile values of CPR and UCR, respectively, while median values were more similar. In the gestational-age range of 28-36 weeks, there was no relationship between UCR or CPR and gestational age. From the prospective observational study, 856 pregnancies at risk of late-onset preterm fetal growth restriction were included in the analysis. The association of abnormal UCR or CPR with composite adverse perinatal outcome was similar for percentile thresholds or MoM values, as calculated from the charts, and for absolute thresholds, both on univariable analysis and after adjustment for gestational age at measurement, estimated fetal weight MoM and pre-eclampsia. The adjusted odds ratio for composite adverse perinatal outcome was 3.3 (95% CI, 1.7-6.4) for an absolute UCR threshold of ≥ 0.9 or an absolute CPR threshold of < 1.11 (corresponding to ≥ 1.75 MoM), and 1.6 (95% CI, 0.9-2.9) for an absolute UCR threshold of ≥ 0.7 to < 0.9 or an absolute CPR threshold of ≥ 1.11 to < 1.43 (corresponding to ≥ 1.25 to < 1.75 MoM). CONCLUSIONS: In the gestational-age range of 32 to 36 weeks, adjustment of CPR or UCR for gestational age is not necessary when assessing the risk of adverse outcome in pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction. The adoption of absolute CPR or UCR thresholds, independent of reference charts, is feasible and makes clinical assessment simpler than if using percentiles or other gestational-age normalized units. The high variability in percentile threshold values among the commonly used UCR and CPR reference charts hinders reliable diagnosis and clinical management of late preterm fetal growth restriction. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fetal cerebral Doppler changes and outcome in late preterm fetal growth restriction: prospective cohort study

Objectives To explore the association between fetal umbilical and middle cerebral artery (MCA) Doppler abnormalities and outcome in late preterm pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation, enrolled in 33 European centers between 2017 and 2018, in which umbilical and fetal MCA Doppler velocimetry was performed. Pregnancies were considered at risk of fetal growth restriction if they had estimated fetal weight and/or abdominal circumference (AC) < 10th percentile, abnormal arterial Doppler and/or a fall in AC growth velocity of more than 40 percentile points from the 20-week scan. Composite adverse outcome comprised both immediate adverse birth outcome and major neonatal morbidity. Using a range of cut-off values, the association of MCA pulsatility index and umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR) with composite adverse outcome was explored. Results The study population comprised 856 women. There were two (0.2%) intrauterine deaths. Median gestational age at delivery was 38 (interquartile range (IQR), 37–39) weeks and birth weight was 2478 (IQR, 2140–2790) g. Compared with infants with normal outcome, those with composite adverse outcome (n = 93; 11%) were delivered at an earlier gestational age (36 vs 38 weeks) and had a lower birth weight (1900 vs 2540 g). The first Doppler observation of MCA pulsatility index < 5th percentile and UCR Z-score above gestational-age-specific thresholds (1.5 at 32–33 weeks and 1.0 at 34–36 weeks) had the highest relative risks (RR) for composite adverse outcome (RR 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5–3.2) and RR 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4–3.0), respectively). After adjustment for confounders, the association between UCR Z-score and composite adverse outcome remained significant, although gestational age at delivery and birth-weight Z-score had a stronger association. Conclusion In this prospective multicenter study, signs of cerebral blood flow redistribution were found to be associated with adverse outcome in late preterm singleton pregnancies at risk of fetal growth restriction. Whether cerebral redistribution is a marker describing the severity of fetal growth restriction or an independent risk factor for adverse outcome remains unclear, and whether it is useful for clinical management can be answered only in a randomized trial. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Setting the Scene

The recent development of the concept ‘geoethics’ is a response by geoscientists to shape deeper engagement with their professional responsibilities and the wider societal relevance of geosciences. This introductory chapter outlines the development of geoethics to date, as a ‘virtue ethics’ focusing primarily on the role of the geoscientist, describes its meaning and function in relation to neighbouring fields and explores how to situate geoethics in relation to a wider range of issues that require ethical consideration. The emerging field of geoethics has already touched on many topics. This chapter reflects on the significance of geoethics as an effective operational toolkit for geoscientists, asking whether this functional purpose may be weakened if the range of matters considered under the term ‘geoethics’ becomes too wide.Published1-241TM. Formazione2TM. Divulgazione Scientifica3TM. Comunicazion